Comment by zahlman

> A static type check doesn't stand in for "a" unit test; static typing stands in for an unbounded number of unit tests.

You have conflated "a static type check" with "static typing". Unit tests stand in, in the same way, for an unbounded number of states of real-world input. They're simply being subjected to a trial verification system rather than a proof system. It turns out that writing proofs is not very many people's idea of a good time, even in the programming world. And the concept of "type" that's normally grokked is anemic anyway.

> Put another way...

Rhetoric like this is unconvincing and frankly insulting. You pass off your taste and opinion as fact, while failing to understand opposed arguments.