&gt; <i>shows that I don&#x27;t create these bugs in my software.</i><p>Unfortunately, it doesn&#x27;t show you that you don&#x27;t create <i>other than these</i> easy bugs in the code.<p>&gt; <i>It&#x27;s wrong in a way totally preventable ahead of time.</i><p>That would be a more powerful argument <i>if all else could be held equal</i>, which it rarely is.<p>&gt; <i>I&#x27;ll take what I can get.</i><p>Local greediness is not always rationally founded.<p>Anyway, dynamic typing <i>doesn&#x27;t preclude</i> the proof engine. Dynamic programs can be analyzed to predict situations of inconsistent use of type, so that you can be informed. However, that doesn&#x27;t prevent them from being executed, and still having the type representations at run time to resolve the situation. That is to say, programs for which the proof engine positively identifies one or more type error can be run anyway, as well as those for which it says &quot;undecided&quot; (not proven free of type errors, but no errors confirmed).<p>Dynamic typing doesn&#x27;t mean &quot;I don&#x27;t want my program analyzed prior to it being run; do <i>not</i> inform me of any impending issue of type!&quot;.