> The claim that untyped code has fewer bugs is completely bonkers
Not really. It is, however, quite expensive to measure, because dynamic typing really shines at the evolution of software, that is being able to respond fast to changing requirements. Legos vs play-doh: https://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2008/11/9/legos-play-doh-and-pr...
> Why do you think microsoft, google and facebook are all in the business of typechecking
A billion flies can't be wrong? Companies with unlimited amount of money are not the right place to search for good practices. Both Facebook and Google became flush with cash way before modern type obsession. Sure, once you are a multi-billion dollar company slowing down can be a good thing. But you need to get there first.
> If typechecking would actually introduce bugs, it'd be better not doing it right?
If sugar caused us to die sooner, we'd be better to eating too much if it, right? And yet, here we are.
Not really. It is, however, quite expensive to measure, because dynamic typing really shines at the evolution of software, that is being able to respond fast to changing requirements. Legos vs play-doh: https://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2008/11/9/legos-play-doh-and-pr...
> Why do you think microsoft, google and facebook are all in the business of typechecking
A billion flies can't be wrong? Companies with unlimited amount of money are not the right place to search for good practices. Both Facebook and Google became flush with cash way before modern type obsession. Sure, once you are a multi-billion dollar company slowing down can be a good thing. But you need to get there first.
> If typechecking would actually introduce bugs, it'd be better not doing it right?
If sugar caused us to die sooner, we'd be better to eating too much if it, right? And yet, here we are.