> Saying things like "perfectly safe" I've never said that. It's always about trade-offs, but simply adding a typed system would not have prevented the issue,

> Saying things like "perfectly safe" I've never said that. It's always about trade-offs, but simply adding a typed system would not have prevented the issue, as it was already built in a typed system. My whole point is not pro or against typed languages. It's that we need to move beyond that. > Actually thats exactly what they are, because they will stop you from compiling a program that would have bugs in a dynamically typed system. It totally depends. It only stops you if you are diligent enough to write programs with a very good type structure and hopefully you don't have any logical mistakes. If you type everything with primitives like uint you can still have a compiling program that's incorrect. > This thread is full of people suggesting type-safe fixes that would've prevented this And I could suggest fixes without typed languages that would also have prevented this, like better testing. The point is that a type system does not inherently change anything. It's still up to the developer and the systems around to be good enough to prevent catastrophes from happening. Using types is most definitely one way of solving the issue, if implemented correctly. But the exact same could be done with a dynamic language. > But if you keep suggesting that types wouldn't work here you simply don't understand types Sure... I don't understand types ;) In any case, I never said types wouldn't work here. Read my comments again. I said types are not the determining factor. The fact that this happened in a typed language simply cannot be overstated. Using a typed language or not affects many variables but it's not what will ultimately decide if a critical piece of software will kill someone or not.