Here's a bug from the real world: the login form doesn't render correctly in IE. When someone implements IE's layout algorithm as a haskell type, I'll start paying attention.
I am not sure if type-checking even aspires to be exhaustive. As long as it can detect my stupid and costly mistakes at a cost that is cheaper than the cost of the mistakes, I am happy. But I can understand that for people who do not make costly and compile time checkable mistakes, it might not be worth it.
@tedunangst Got you. Your second paragraph in the previous comment threw me off. It does read like you consider type-checking unworthy of attention because it cannot catch all possible errors. Agree with your comment about people overstating their case. I think the noisiest of both the camps (if one can call it that) are equally guilty.
Type checking is useful. I like it. But I don't like people talking about it like it's magic pixie dust.
Pay attention here: any template that attempts to emit HTML will fail to Typecheck.
Not a panacea, but static enforcement of Don't Repeat Your Bugs, even before those particular bugs are discovered.