A 2018 study [0] found the following: > Language design does have a significant, but modest effect on software quality. Most notably, it does appear that disal

A 2018 study [0] found the following: > Language design does have a significant, but modest effect on software quality. Most notably, it does appear that disallowing type confusion is modestly better than allowing it, and among functional languages, static typing is also somewhat better than dynamic typing. We also find that functional languages are somewhat better than procedural languages. > The languages with the strongest positive coefficients - meaning associated with a greater number of defect fixes are C++, C, and Objective-C, also PHP and Python. On the other hand, Clojure, Haskell, Ruby and Scala all have significant negative coefficients implying that these languages are less likely than average to result in defect fixing commits. > The data indicates that functional languages are better than procedural languages; it suggests that disallowing implicit type conversion is better than allowing it; that static typing is better than dynamic; and that managed memory usage is better than unmanaged. Regarding your comments: > Personally I like typed languages but the type systems in languages like TypeScript are simply insufficient. You still end up with runtime bugs because you can't actually use those types at runtime. That's because TypeScript is not actually strongly typed, it is gradually typed; throw in a single "any" type into your TS and all static guarantees are now off. I agree that TypeScript is insufficient, and point to languages like Rust or Haskell (one of the languages with the lowest defect rate in the study [0]) that actually do offer static guarantees, and where use of untyped "escape hatches" is far less common and/or is far more judiciously applied. > If a type system could basically remove the need for me to think about runtime bugs, then that's an absolute killer feature that I doubt anyone would argue against. But most languages don't provide that Isn't this basically the promise of Haskell, Rust, et al? "If it compiles, it works;" "guaranteed memory safety," etc? [0] https://developers.slashdot.org/story/18/01/01/0242218/which-programming-languages-are-most-prone-to-bugs https://developers.slashdot.org/story/18/01/01/0242218/which...