Just to address a depressingly common misunderstanding whenever testing and static typing is brought up: Static Typing vs Testing: Which is better? No! Stop t

Just to address a depressingly common misunderstanding whenever testing and static typing is brought up: Static Typing vs Testing: Which is better? No! Stop that! There is no "vs"! To take Haskell as an example, it is a completely statically typed language which, if not abused cleverly, guarantees that you don't have code trying to add inches to centimeters, or divide a hangar by a sorted apple. It also has a very powerful unit test generation and execution library (+), code coverage tools, and test statistics tools. These libraries and tools are frequently used by Haskell programmers. Creating any large project without unit tests is just as silly in Haskell as it would be in Python. Nobody has ever (or possibly, only nobodies have) argued that static typing eliminates the need for tests. The author of this post didn't argue that either. (+) http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction_to_QuickCheck http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction_to_QuickChec...