Research is... complicated. I've seen a lot of research, some shows that types prevent bugs, some doesn't. It's all over the place. If you really want me to I c

Research is... complicated. I've seen a lot of research, some shows that types prevent bugs, some doesn't. It's all over the place. If you really want me to I can find you some papers. I've read perhaps two dozen, total, maybe 15+, dunno. The methodologies range from "we scanned github" to "we went to a company and had them solve a problem twice" to "we took a curated group of developers, trained them in two made up languages (one with and one without a type system) and let them attempt to solve a complex business problem" - and the results vary, although my recollection is that they are largely "pro types". The thing is, not everything is going to show up in research results. There are an insane number of variables. How do you account for developer experience? How do you account for experience within a domain? Experience with a language? How do you account for different type systems? Training with type systems? Complexity of the domain? How do you account for one developer being better than another? How do you account for development methodologies? How do you account for people's moods that day? How do you account for effort? It's just not something you can easily research. It's extremely expensive just to generate a small study that tries to control for some of these things. In the meantime, we can use our experience as engineers. We have to make a judgment. We have to form opinions that are biased and subjective.