Hacker News Reader

> And the correctness is limited only to certain properties of the program, that a given type system supports.

In case there are readers not familiar with the current state of things, you can pick solid languages today whose type systems support a LOT. It is completely fair (and good) to point out that this isn't a panacea, but it can significantly help.

If you really think types are only useful for verifying code correctness, you probably never used a language with a modern type system.

We can argue about the definition of 'understand' all day, but it's a simple fact that the computer has more of an understanding of the structure of your program with a type system, and thus can help out more.

I still wouldn't use 'understanding' in that context. It makes as if a static typing compiler sounds "magical".

I could say "python is better at understanding what the programmer wants to do". But I think you'd disagree with me.

The compiler is doing lexical analysis of the program being fed into it. That's it.