Hmm, I'd argue that since any language is effectively compiled to zeroes and ones under the hood, by that logic no type system can protect you. A good type syst

Hmm, I'd argue that since any language is effectively compiled to zeroes and ones under the hood, by that logic no type system can protect you. A good type system is there to guide you, and verify that your code is going to be ok even once types are erased. Transpiled/compiled/whatever you want to call it, the type system can prevent dumb and smart programmers from making a whole class of errors. In my experience OCaml has prevented so many errors I would have made in JavaScript, including but not limited to: - Non-exhaustive select/case statements - missing one of the possibilities causes undefined behaviour. It might not even be a case of carelessness or forgetting - just that a new option gets added by someone unfamiliar with the codebase and doesn't realize they need to update a bunch of select statements. - Changing the name of a field on an object across the codebase, and forgetting to update every single instance. OCaml won't even compile until you've fixed them all. - Null and undefined weirdness. Just search any large JS github repo for "null"/"undefined" and see how many issues are related. With OCaml, you'll almost never see them because you're forced the deal with the possibility before your code will even compile. I believe that a type checker isn't necessary until you can no longer hold the entire codebase in your head. For me, that means once my program goes over about 150 LOC, I need the compiler to help me out.