[elbear]

> No one claims that good type systems prevent buggy software.

That's exactly what languages with advanced type systems claim. To be more precise, they claim to eliminate entire classes of bugs. So they reduce bugs, they don't eliminate them completely.

[bonesss]

No nulls, no nullability bombs.

Forcing devs to pre-fix/avoid bugs before the compiler will allow the app means the programs are more correct as a group.

Wrong, incomplete, insufficient, unhelpful, unimpressive, and dumb are all still very possible. But more correct than likely in looser systems.

[fc417fc802]

> No nulls, no nullability bombs.

I hate this meme. Null indicates something. If you disallow null that same state gets encoded in some other way. And if you don't properly check for that state you get the exact same class of bug. The desirable type system feature here is the ability to statically verify that such a check has occurred every time a variable is accessed.

Another example is bounds checking. Languages that stash the array length somewhere and verify against it on access eliminate yet another class of bug without introducing any programmer overhead (although there generally is some runtime overhead).

[kazinator]

If you eliminate the odd integers from consideration, you've eliminated an entire class of integers. yet, the set of remaining integers is of the same size as the original.

[petesergeant]

Peak HN gnomism. While the set of possible errors may be infinite, their distribution is not uniform.

[moi2388]

No, because integers in computing are generally finite.

[tmtvl]

There cannot be infinite bugs in a limited program.