> typecheckers do find a lot of errors that would otherwise be runtime errors. This is a claim I see repeated over and over without much evidence to support it

> typecheckers do find a lot of errors that would otherwise be runtime errors. This is a claim I see repeated over and over without much evidence to support it. In my experience type checkers find a lot of errors that would still be found at later stages and a lot of tiny errors that don't matter and can be dealt with via much cheaper tools. Shorter feedback cycle is nice, and occasionally it does catch a real bug, but the benefits of static typing are vastly overblown. There probably are teams where typecheckers do catch a lot of important runtime errors. Those are the teams with a horrible engineering culture. In those environments typecheckers are a bandaid, not a cure. If anything, they are hiding the real problem: you shouldn't give a perfume to someone who doesn't shower.