> The real hard to find bugs come from state and complexity, both of which are completely ignored by static type systems. Instead I see the exact opposite: the

> The real hard to find bugs come from state and complexity, both of which are completely ignored by static type systems. Instead I see the exact opposite: the new shiny typed abstractions introduce so much state and complexity that any advantage gained by having static types is lost there. That's just not true. If you model your state and its transitions as types, then it's entirely the case that your type system can help you out. It can also force you to write down an explicit & precise guide to said system, which will help readers. > The real hard to find bugs come from state and complexity, No one argues that this is the case, but what's key to understand is that people still make the stupid mistakes. People like you and me. I've got over a decade of experience, I've shipped code in common lisp, javascript, ruby, python... you name it in the who's-who' of dynamic languages and odds are I've shipped code in it. And I can STILL make silly little type errors. I'm tired of this collective fiction that we're all so awesome that we don't make those errors. Removing those is important. It lets me think more about the interesting parts of the code and trust the computer to do the tedious bits for me. That's what automation is all about, isn't it?