If the tests are catching bugs, obviously they need them. And if those bugs would be prohibited by static typing, then it sounds like Ruby is creating work. >

If the tests are catching bugs, obviously they need them. And if those bugs would be prohibited by static typing, then it sounds like Ruby is creating work. > if we are passing a string instead of an array of strings somewhere, the test will fail Is this an example of a real bug? It's mind boggling that anyone would use a language that allows them to type that bug into existence without an immediate error. I know we used to be forced to use JS, but not we even have TS so that we don't have to catch extremely machine-catchable errors in tests or, worse, production.