The guy I'm criticizing here is a certain breed of person who advocates unit tests but suffers from a logical flaw in his reasoning. He advocates unit tests like a mad man but he uses an unsafe, untyped language for the entire project. Javascript is the worst offender here.

Unit tests are a safety first philosophy that is employed at the inconvenience of writing tests. However, it makes ZERO sense to employ unit tests as a safety net without type checking as a feature that proves your program is absent of type errors. Remember unit tests only verify a test case works, the safety features I talk about in my post actually Prove your program correct.

This is a huge flaw in engineering paradigms that I see permeate the industry today. People literally are ignoring a feature that proves a major part of your program correct and they are advocating the entire program be safe guarded with a weaker check (unit testing). I advocate we use both.

We see thousands of python, ruby and nodejs projects with massive unit testing overhead on top of the project itself. What these advocates don't realize is that you can get rid of 80% of these tests with a type safe language. I urge you to check the unit testing involved with a golang project vs javascript. There's usually a significant difference in size. For robust applications the unit testing suite of a javascript app is much much bigger in size.

I end with a quote from a guy who used logical methods to prove the absence of bugs in his programs rather then rely on hundreds of unit tests.

"Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs." - Dijkstra (1969).