> If you had a type checker bug you didn't you manually test that code path at the bare minimum. I'm glad that you agree type checkers help avoid error prone a

> If you had a type checker bug you didn't you manually test that code path at the bare minimum. I'm glad that you agree type checkers help avoid error prone and expensive manual testing work. > What isn't helpful is the the notion that types replace testing. Types are a type of testing. They are another tool in the toolbox for writing correct programs.