Then we have reached the end. Not only do you claim that I don't know what type checking means, you claim that by having static typing you don't have to write tests. Because that's the effect of your claim. That static type checking is the equivalent of ton of test cases (and documentation, absurdly).

If you have a good test coverage for your application, you'll have found the problems static type checking finds any way. Therefore, to be equivalent of tons of tests, you have to effectively be able to get by with almost no tests at all. That is what you claim.

That is patently absurd and without basis in reality. Full stop.

> you claim that by having static typing you don't have to write tests

@Lennart That is an absurd assertion, I have (several times!) asserted the opposite.

However, I’ve just seen another chat in which you’ve argued with somebody else. If I had seen that transcript before I would never have started a discussion with you.

You are clearly not interested in honest discourse.

I agree that it is absurd. But that is the effect of what you are saying.

You are saying that is saves massive amounts of tests. It does not, because you have to write those tests anyway for other reasons.

Guessing at which transcript you mean, that discussion actually ended with the other guy coming back the day after, apologizing, admitting he was wrong and saying he felt like an idiot. That means that you are now not doing anything but insulting me instead of arguying.

That may be your definition of "honest discourse". That's up to you.

In either case we have reached the end. You are asserting something you admit is absurd, without realizing that you are asserting it, and you are then resorting to discussing me, and not what I say. Both things quite separately makes it impossible to discuss this further with you.