# Types 'n' Testing **URL:** \ **Category:** Discussions\ **Tags:** testing, types\ **Created:** [August 11, 2023, 7:16pm UTC](https://forum.elixirforum.com/t/types-n-testing/57577 "2023-08-11T19:16:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 28
**Author:** ![sodapopcan](https://forum.elixirforum.com/user_avatar/forum.elixirforum.com/sodapopcan/32/34668_2.png) [@sodapopcan](https://forum.elixirforum.com/u/sodapopcan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2023, 8:14pm UTC](https://forum.elixirforum.com/t/types-n-testing/57577/28 "2023-08-16T20:14:44Z")
> [@thmsmlr](#): > > If you want a more philosophical exploration of this topic, check out this Gary Bernhardt talk from a couple years ago. I know and love this talk and have watched it several times (along with Gary’s other criminally under-rated talks that aren’t the “WAT”). I have nothing against statically typed languages and I don’t personally believe that testing replaces types… at least not testing alone, but I really didn’t want to turn this thread into a debate 😬 I’ve played around with typed languages but have no professional experience with them and I haven’t even built a fleshed-out toy application with one. My questioned stemmed from the extreme stance that is taken online around static typing. In this particular case, I was talking about how I’ve read the phrase: “Static types replace a whole class of tests!” _so_ many times online but examples of are never given (I never bothered asking because I didn’t want to get involved in a static typing debate on the internet). I was always skeptical and then I watched José’s talk where he said he doesn’t agree with this statement, so I was like, “Yay! Ok, so what are these tests people were writing that they stopped writing once they had types?” I definitely see how it benefits LSPs. I guess it’s a “weird flex” as the kids say, but I don’t use them (though I love Mitch’s work in general). --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.elixirforum.com/t/types-n-testing/57577)._