You're right, static type checking is great for just that, making sure your program is type correct. But that doesn't at all mean your program really is correct.
Granted, un-tested scripting code is more dangerous than compiled, un-tested compilable code because of potential type snafus.
However, tested scripting code is better than compiled, un-tested compilable code.
And tested scripting code is, assuming you've written good unit tests, just as good as compiled, tested compilable code.
In scripting code, unit tests take care of psuedo-type checking, plus actual functionality testing which is much more important, to the point where the simple type checking that compilers do isn't really needed.
Of course the problem is that hardly anybody writes unit tests for scripting code.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, static type checking is great for just that, making sure your program is type correct. But that doesn't at all mean your program really is correct.
Granted, un-tested scripting code is more dangerous than compiled, un-tested compilable code because of potential type snafus.
However, tested scripting code is better than compiled, un-tested compilable code.
And tested scripting code is, assuming you've written good unit tests, just as good as compiled, tested compilable code.
In scripting code, unit tests take care of psuedo-type checking, plus actual functionality testing which is much more important, to the point where the simple type checking that compilers do isn't really needed.
Of course the problem is that hardly anybody writes unit tests for scripting code.