Right, for DI/IoC it seems pretty standard. (I think it's probably a historical accident, honestly. Reflection was really the tool to get constructor parameters and then someone figured, hey, why not just inject private values directy? It surely convenient at the time, but... lessons learned, I guess. I have no problem with compile-time DI via static reflection of e.g. constructors. It's a little more boilerplate, but worth it, IMO)

Definitely agree about "stringly" typed programming becoming an increasing issue in Java over the years, but that had more to do with over-use of instanceOf, etc., not so much actual strings (as in className).

> I'm increasingly coming to fear that languages with more safety-oriented features aren't associated with safer practices because those features encourage safer design, so much as because they tend not to attract programmers with a swashbuckling attitude in the first place.

For the life of me I cannot parse this sentence. Could you please rephrase or expound? Is there a missing negative somewhere, or...?