My point is there is no need to be so preconcerned about a rarely used function that requires giving up a little safety (in a place with very little "code entro

My point is there is no need to be so preconcerned about a rarely used function that requires giving up a little safety (in a place with very little "code entropy" even). Doing so does not equal giving up type safety completely, not even 1% of it. There are way bigger issues to address even in the best of codebases. > Type safety is a real concern, and lack of it has conséquences in the real world, often in the form of bugs or vulnerablities To me type safety is first and foremost a usability feature - already a primitive type system like C's saves tons of time when changing code. But is it a great concern with regards to bugs and vulnerabilities? Type safety is static, once you've run a particular section of code, you can be relatively sure that there are no type issues on that path. (Granted that to run all code sections even once can be lots of work). That is contrary to other types of bugs which might only show up on rare occasions, and possibly require malicious intent.