yep. I've worked at places with unit tests/e2e/and static typing. And I've worked at places with zero unit tests/no e2e/dynamic typing. The push for more testi

yep. I've worked at places with unit tests/e2e/and static typing. And I've worked at places with zero unit tests/no e2e/dynamic typing. The push for more testing and static typing (to degree) was always managers. They trade predictability for momentum. The reality in both situations is that bugs happen. I've not noticed a difference in frequency of "critical" bugs in either scenario. The only difference is that at the no unit test/no e2e places, getting your code into production was trivial. Which always meant when bugs happen, they are fixed much faster than the unit test-everything place. We're talking minutes vs. days here. Because at a risk-adverse business (that is, any place more than a few hundred people), you have multiple stakeholders that have to sign off if you want to go take a piss in the bathroom.