> I don’t find every bug, but finding some bugs is better than none.
I used to think this, but based on experience I'm now less convinced. Finding most bugs, like real static typing does, is great; you can significantly reduce your test coverage and iterate with more confidence. Finding a few bugs is pretty useless if you're not finding enough to actually change your workflow.
Finding a few bugs is very useful if they're the kind of bugs that can cause problems in production but usually not in development or testing, like not checking an optional that is very rarely null.
It's not about workflow or finding enough bugs, but finding bugs that you might not have otherwise seen can be monumentally beneficial.
> Finding a few bugs is very useful if they're the kind of bugs that can cause problems in production but usually not in development or testing, like not checking an optional that is very rarely null.
There's a kind of excluded middle here though. Either that kind of bug hits production often enough to matter - in which case a checker that catches it sometimes isn't good enough, you need a checker that eliminates it completely. Or it doesn't hit production often enough to matter, in which case a checker is of limited use.
I used to think this, but based on experience I'm now less convinced. Finding most bugs, like real static typing does, is great; you can significantly reduce your test coverage and iterate with more confidence. Finding a few bugs is pretty useless if you're not finding enough to actually change your workflow.