Plus, it is simply more enjoyable to design the types in your program than to write unit tests. The fun factor comes from operating on a higher level of abstraction and engages more of your brain’s puzzle-solving mode than just writing unit tests. Making yourself think about “for all x” rather than a concrete x forces your brain to consider deeply the properties of x being used.

> "a static type check is just a stand-in for a unit test."

This is not an original argument. Rich Hickey made a similar argument in his "Simple made easy" talk in 2011, though his focus was on a fact that every bug that easiest in a software system has passed unnoticed through both a type checker and a test suit. And even before that similar ideas of test suits being a suitable replacement for a type checker have percolated through Python and Ruby communities, too.

I distinctly remember that the "tests makes static type checks unnecessary" was in fact so prevalent in JavaScript community that TypeScript had really hard time getting adoption in its first 3-4 years, and only the introduction of VSCode in 2015 and subsequent growth of its marketshare over Atom and SublimeText got more people exposed to TypeScript and the benefits of a type checker. Overall it took almost 10 years for Typescript to become the "default" language for web projects.

> I wanted to throw a shoe at him.

You should have!

Agreed.

Besides, it's not like types don't matter in dynamically typed languages. The (competent) programmer still needs to keep types in their head while programming. "Can this function work with a float, or must I pass an int?" "This function expects an iterable, but what happens if I pass a string?" Etc.

I started my career with JavaScript and Python, but over the years I've come to the conclusion that a language that hides types from programmers and does implicit conversion magic in the background does not deliver a better DX. It might make the language more approachable initially, and the idea of faster prototyping might be appealing, but it very quickly leads to maintenance problems and bugs. Before type hinting tools for Python became popular, I worked on many projects where `TypeError` was the #1 exception in Sentry by a large margin.

Gradual and optional typing is better than nothing, but IME if the language doesn't require it, most programmers are lazy and will do the bare minimum to properly add type declarations. Especially with things like TypeScript, which makes many declarations difficult to read, write, and understand.

I think that type inference is a solid middle ground. Types are still statically declared, but the compiler is smart enough to not bother the developer when the type is obvious.

Hundreds of unit tests replace a type.

Start using properties and it is in the thousands.

Most code should be typed. Python is great for prototypes, but once the prototype gels, you need types.

If you care about the type of a parameter you can just add an assertion in the method /s

Good luck using static typing to model many real world unit tests for the programming languages people use most. I start with an easy example: those records should be sorted by date of birth. We can move on to more complicated scenarios.

> 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.