Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, what stops something like [defining add as subtraction] cmon... "it doesn't guard you against every logic error under the sun" isn't a great argument
There's no strong evidence that static typing helps reduce application logic bugs https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/ Under the same pressures it's pretty likely that the same teams that deploy dynamic language code to production and get an unexpected nil deploy statically typed code to production which unwraps an unexpected None and throws exceptions or panics.
There's no evidence proving the opposite either. We can't say anything beyond that the existing studies don't really show anything. I think it's pretty obvious that the limit of static typing reduces logic bugs (since it can actually be used to prove statements about the logic), but beyond that everything is kind of up in the air.
>Under the same pressures it's pretty likely that the same teams that deploy dynamic language code to production and get an unexpected nil deploy statically typed code to production which unwraps an unexpected None and throws exceptions or panics.
There's nothing to support that that this is 'pretty likely'. As far as we know, it could very well be that statically typed languages push you in the direction of handling it the right way. Or hell, it could be that a team using a dynamic language is more cautious and conscious of edge cases.