Also your statement is only partially correct. Breaking changes in dependencies end up in production only if you don't have tests. And I know this is news to many people using static types but in many Ruby shops for example there are test coverages in excess of 90% and at the very least I never approve a PR without happy path tests.
That's true. However, you have now replaced the work of a compiler with testing.
On top of that, sometimes mocking in tests also hide the string breaking change you don’t yet know about.
On top of my head, I saw this happen with a base64 string padded vs unpadded, or emojis making their way through when they did not before, etc.
So yeah, the compiler tells you which pieces of your jigsaw apparently fit together, but tests show you if you get the right picture on the jigsaw at the end (or on some regions).
Which are opt-in in dynamically typed languages.
You get the same functionality in statically typed languages and it's not opt-in, AND the developer doesn't have to do the work of type-checking (the compiler does it).
In an interoperable environment, when additional programming languages/teams are in play, which is very frequent nowadays. You have the problem of centralizing types/entities/schemas, reused types, partial types, and union types, and you can keep the story on.
At some point, instead of typing being an invisible tool, it becomes the tool. Then you superset the tool to other languages, because they are in an immutable state. Another language will emerge with dynamic typing in decades then people will take the same spiral and spend more time to reason wages.
Will also keep in mind that tests are optional. This is def. a healthy mindset.
who said that?
> Will also keep in mind that tests are optional. This is def. a healthy mindset.
Once again, I have to ask - where did you get that from?