[redbad]

I am absolutely not arguing that static/strong typing obviates the need for testing. Unit and integration tests absolutely have a place in statically-typed languages, and it is precisely as you describe: to ensure functional and business-level requirements.

Notice that I said "ensure", and not "describe" or "define". Because I think that's the disconnect. When you come from a dynamically-typed language background, I think you're more apt to believe your testing needs to describe/define your contracts, because you don't have a type system to leverage. But if you _do_ have a type system to leverage, the pathological context that justifies e.g. BDD is no longer valid, and tools like Ginkgo -- enabling "descriptive tests that can act as effective documentation" -- therefore don't make much sense. To me.