[jkrems]

> We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.

Obvious - because you just said "with better defined as has more static typing, static typing is better". That's an empty statement if I ever saw one.

[teacup50]

That it's better to accurately and reliably modeling complex systems and invariants through provable assertions is objectively is no more an empty statement than to say that it's better to apply informed materials and structural engineering to the design of complex physical products than to build ad-hoc designs of unknown parameters through guesswork.

[jkrems]

If you think that building software is like building bridges, then yes. If you think that it's the exploration of a problem domain that may not be known to you at the start of the process and is subject to various degrees of iteration (e.g. a process more like writing a script/play), then you get vastly different requirements. That's what I meant by "if you define better as more static typing". "Better" is a normative statement and can never be absolute, it's always relative to a choice.

[teacup50]

I don't see how it follows that iteration reduces the degree to which one must understand a system. That's just a rephrasing of the attractive but ultimately empty "dynamic typing is just more creative."

Bridges (or car engines, or any other engineered product) aren't invented whole cloth sans iteration. However, it's understanding of the invariants of the iterated system that allow for directed iterative design and ultimately better products.

Rather than repeat this argument, I'll refer to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656184