> What I'm saying is that there is a set of incorrect runtime behaviors that can only be exhibited in a dynamic type system, that is, the set of type errors. I'

> What I'm saying is that there is a set of incorrect runtime behaviors that can only be exhibited in a dynamic type system, that is, the set of type errors. I'm not aware of any runtime errors that can only be exhibited under a static type system. But that doesn't mean they have fewer bugs! They might well have more. > What I'm saying is that the set of possible incorrect runtime behaviors is smaller in a static language. Not exactly. For every program in an untyped language, you could write a typed program with the exact same behaviours. The assertion that typed programs have fewer bugs is simply false in theory, and failed to be confirmed empirically. > However it is my belief that if there is an effect on bugs overall that it derives from what I understand to be a formal character of the runtime behavior of statically typed programs, that there are fewer ways for them to "go wrong." I understand that that is your belief, but it is supported by neither theory nor practice.