This technique makes me sad. Not because it's a bad idea. Quite the contrary. I've sung the praises of it myself. But because it's like the most basic way you

This technique makes me sad. Not because it's a bad idea. Quite the contrary. I've sung the praises of it myself. But because it's like the most basic way you can use a type system to prevent bugs. In both the sense used in the article, and in the sense that it is something you have to do to get the even more powerful tools brought to bear on the problem that type systems often. And yet, in the real world, I am constantly explaining this to people and constantly fighting uphill battles to get people to do it, and not bypass it by using primitives as much as possible then bashing it into the strict type at the last moment, or even just trying to remove the types. Here on HN we debate the finer points of whether we should be using dependent typing, and in the real world I'm just trying to get people to use a Username type instead of a string type. Not always. There are some exceptions. And considered over my entire career, the trend is positive overall. But there's still a lot of basic explanations about this I have to give. I wonder what the trend of LLM-based programming will result in after another few years. Will the LLMs use this technique themselves, or will people lean on LLMs to "just" fix the problems from using primitive types everywhere?