> I think you would be surprised by the amount of type-checked bugs that can be eliminated in dynamic languages with standard software engineering practices. ha

> I think you would be surprised by the amount of type-checked bugs that can be eliminated in dynamic languages with standard software engineering practices. have a look at how common lisp To second this, I just read someone's anecdote about how unit tests/TDD is eliminating the need for type checking: https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 > i think i disagree with this. the larger the code base the more flexible the program needs to be towards its input And again, I'll second this with another anecdotal posting, but with the emphasis that input is not just run-time, but also specifications for programs: http://ivy.io/common-lisp/2015/03/03/guerilla-lisp-opus.html http://ivy.io/common-lisp/2015/03/03/guerilla-lisp-opus.html