I think that you, InclinedPlane, and BoppreH are missing the point, while cautioning against a strawman. It is elementary that successful compilation does not

I think that you, InclinedPlane, and BoppreH are missing the point, while cautioning against a strawman. It is elementary that successful compilation does not imply correct code; but that is not what Ayende is talking about at all. There are specific, disciplined ways in which you can use the compiler to reliably tell you what you need to fix when making certain kinds of changes. Such techniques are very valuable in large codebases. For example, you change the semantics of an interface method slightly, and this results in changing the type of the return value, or the arguments. After changing the method signature in the interface, the compiler tells you exactly where you need to make corresponding changes in the rest of your large codebase. Naturally, it can't tell you exactly what changes to make - for that you use your brain. But it tells you exactly where you need to make changes, and gives a good general idea of what changes to make. That's the kind of technique this post is talking about. Whether you intend it or not, dismissing effective use of such powerful tools as "confusing compilation with correctness" is both misleading, and kind of insulting to users of strongly typed languages who know what they're doing.