> simple unit tests aren't the important ones And yet, they prevented me from committing dumb mistakes to the main branch so many times. > types are just simp

> simple unit tests aren't the important ones And yet, they prevented me from committing dumb mistakes to the main branch so many times. > types are just simple unit tests written for you Even better if I don't have to write them. Is this really a counter argument? > dynamic languages only need unit tests because they don't have type systems But every language has a type system! How would they differentiate an integer from a string if they don't? Even assembly has a type system (byte vs word vs double-word). Am I just nitpicking or is that argument fundamentally flawed and ignorant? > What's going on here? These can't both be right. They can both be wrong though, and they seem to be IMHO. This does not incite me to watch the 20min video. This seems too click-baity.