[mcapodici]

Static typing is very useful and time saving. I can rename something, knowing my IDE can propogate the change. I can call a function and know what it expects, not just "a thing, hope they added a comment so I know what type/shape wont blow it up!".

Here I am talking about the basic static typing, and maybe some generics use occasionally, but obviously people also go overboard sometimes with type features and that hinders understanding for newcomers to the codebase.

[wolvesechoes]

It has benefits, yes. And TDD also has some benefits. In both cases, these benefits are limited, and there are costs associated. And in both cases we have empirical evidence showing that neither is panacea to the problems church members claim they solve.

[mcapodici]

I don't feel like static typing (the kind you use in Go, C#, Java etc) is a church, it is just a tool. I mean I always want to use it, because it is useful. So that might be like being in the church of say adding an electric motor to my bicycle? I can't show you a study or hard evidence saying having the electric motor is "better".

I mean there are people who go nuts with very complicated types/type systems so there is that, and then you have very complicated programs, maybe that is what you mean?

Using static typing all the time is just using the tools. Using TDD for everything feels a bit suboptimal to me and so needs some obsession to do that. It only becomes a church then if they keep pestering everyone else to do it.

[topaz0]

Appreciating that there are some benefits is differwnt from adhering to the church