> The biggest thing that contributes to refactorability has nothing to do with type safety. Instead unit test coverage, by a mile, is the thing that makes code easy to refactor
Type Safety is Unit Test Coverage.
Typing is a statically checked test of correctness of your program.
Languages like C give static typing a bad name. Types are not things like 'float', 'int', 'double'. Types are 'degrees', or 'radians'. Types are 'buy', or 'sell', 'price' or 'yield'. Types guarantee that your code executes as you expect, and prevent you from writing incorrect code in the first place.
Is it 100% effective? No. But there's a reason that high level statically typed languages (Scala, Haskell, OCaml) usually work correctly after they compile.
Type Safety is Unit Test Coverage.
Typing is a statically checked test of correctness of your program.
Languages like C give static typing a bad name. Types are not things like 'float', 'int', 'double'. Types are 'degrees', or 'radians'. Types are 'buy', or 'sell', 'price' or 'yield'. Types guarantee that your code executes as you expect, and prevent you from writing incorrect code in the first place.
Is it 100% effective? No. But there's a reason that high level statically typed languages (Scala, Haskell, OCaml) usually work correctly after they compile.