> the idea that static type checking makes developers more productive and prevents tons of errors is overstated Then perhaps you are understating the importanc

> the idea that static type checking makes developers more productive and prevents tons of errors is overstated Then perhaps you are understating the importance of software correctness. While type systems can be an almost religious topic, the benefits of type checking are real -- a whole class of bugs to disregard, less testing code, and a more maintainable codebase for other developers. Moreover, for languages with ADTs and exhaustive type-checking, you are forced to reason about boundary and error conditions. All of which leads to higher quality software, at the minimal cost of up-front work when designing your types and fixing what the compiler/checker says. > type related errors are usually easy to find and fix and have rarely if ever been the root cause of our most difficult problems. Type related errors may be easy to diagnose and fix -- although by definition, in the absence of type-checking, type errors are only so after the fact, eg after causing a crash. Hence the utility of type checkers, especially if it means fewer avoidable errors appearing in production. > Dynamic type checking and implicit conversion is one of the more powerful features of JavaScript and certainly no less prone to error or counter-productive than type-casting, making variadic functions or class templates are in other languages. Type checking doesn't diminish the usefulness/convenience of dynamic languages, but IMO lends more weight to the benefits of strongly static languages -- benefits which are negated by the abuse of "features" such as typecasting or variadic functions.