I have to agree. It's the wild west. You just have to be prepared for things to break, and if you're lucky, they break early and reliably enough that you don't

I have to agree. It's the wild west. You just have to be prepared for things to break, and if you're lucky, they break early and reliably enough that you don't have Heisenbugs. I'd say it's a bit of dynamic language culture, overall. Although, perhaps Javascript sees a particular flavor of it, with its first-class, always-variadic functions. It's all good for prototyping, but man, once you're up in production, dynamism is a recipe for pain. Granted, statically typed languages crash too, but the big difference is that you can often eliminate the same problem throughout your program by getting the type right, as opposed to trying to TDD bugs one at a time as they emerge. I think you nailed it when you said, "there's no compiler to enforce it". Actually, maybe a compiler isn't the key word, but automated checks is the idea. A type-checking compiler is just one solution, albeit a pretty powerful one. Type inference makes it much less onerous these days. But even staunch dynamic language devs have come around to embrace the use of linters. So while it's often seemed that static and dynamic language users would always be at odds, perhaps a convergence is slowly happening.