If you're writing software that's life and death critical like wearing a seatbelt, you should absolutely be using a strong, statically typed language, because catching errors at runtime is completely unacceptable. But incidentally, none of the proponents of static types on this thread have talked about any languages that I would actually use for this situation. Java or C-family languages certainly aren't strongly typed enough. Type systems aren't a magic bullet.
But in the vast majority of modern software, it mostly just matters that you catch and fix bugs quickly--whether you catch those bugs at compile time or runtime is usually not as critical.
What are we proponents of static types being asked to prove?
> But in the vast majority of modern software, it mostly just matters that you catch and fix bugs quickly--whether you catch those bugs at compile time or runtime is usually not as critical.
I would argue that catching bugs at compile time, before you ship them, is vastly preferable to catching them at run time.
Your arguments for why you think static types are better.
> I would argue that catching bugs at compile time, before you ship them, is vastly preferable to catching them at run time.
I would argue that you're only doing the benefit part of a cost-benefit analysis, which isn't very useful.
