> Given that you have untested code, you have a higher likelihood of bugs. Period. In statically typed languages too. In dynamic languages those bugs are likely

> Given that you have untested code, you have a higher likelihood of bugs. Period. In statically typed languages too. In dynamic languages those bugs are likely to manifest a bit differently. Yay? Yes, test proponents love to say "you are not testing well enough!" Its dishonest, because in practice no system can achieve 100% integration test coverage, so no system is testing well enough :) > You were arguing above that static typing was great because it caught bugs in untested code. That certainly sounds like you think it is replacing tests. I never argued that. In fact, I started by saying that what types provide can also be provided by integration tests with that have 100% coverage, but that the second one is a lot more difficult to achieve AND doesn't give the nice extra tooling support (automatic refactoring, extra documentation, instant type incompatibility feedback in IDEs). Indeed, if you can keep your integration test coverage at 100% in your project, you don't need types. Curious though; are you familiar with an open source project that has that?