> there's no way to make code "test-generic" Sure there is. Stop testing random bits of internal functionality, start testing huge modules with well-known (sem

> there's no way to make code "test-generic" Sure there is. Stop testing random bits of internal functionality, start testing huge modules with well-known (semi-public) APIs, or your entire program, and combine that with a ~reasonable~ type system. You want full-system testing. You don't need a whole lot of tests to be sure "it's basically working", and it's a lot easier to turn repeatable bug reports into tests. When you inevitably break a piece of functionality despite your types, you might not know precisely how it broke, but at least you know it's broken without a customer calling you up. And every time a customer does call you up, you can add a full-functionality test - "this is what the user did, and this is what I expect from that". Every other engineering branch backs up good practices and solid math with lots of testing. So should we, types or no types.