That is a very original take, but I think you have it reversed. Typing removes the possibility of _some_ errors. Those are tests you do not _need_ to write (you

That is a very original take, but I think you have it reversed. Typing removes the possibility of _some_ errors. Those are tests you do not _need_ to write (you can still write them if you want), thus having more time and attention to write tests that matter. Typing is a baseline, and anything over that baseline you can deal with with tests. It is like the things you already trust when you code. Let's say, that the file system works, that the network stack of your OS works, or that the cpu works. You can rely on them to use your time for the things that matter. This is a much better model than simply testing everything yourself since, as the tests number increase, any change to the codebase involves more and more test changes. > Strong static typing is useful in the environment where the code is not adequately tested. That's because tests adequate to make the code bulletproof will also detect the problems strong static typing could detect, rendering SST superfluous. Your logic is the same as follows: seat belts are useful in an environment where drivers are not driving adequately. That's because adequate drivers will drive in a way to avoid any danger that the seat belt would prevent, rendering seat belts superfluous. Ultimately, the problem is adequate drivers (as in described above) or bulletproof tests do not exist, they are just a concept. A test can prove the presence of an error, not the lack of errors, and the argument only works in absolutes.