upvote
OP might be referring to Jose Valim's 2023 ElixirConf talk where he's explaining why Elixir should go down the path of types.

He gives a lot more nuanced take than 'types are useless', which is more like 'types are less useful than people think in the context of Elixir development'. (Which makes sense because he's in the middle of implementing a type system for Elixir.)

https://youtu.be/giYbq4HmfGA?t=571

reply
> types are less useful than people think in the context of Elixir development

With no insights at all into Elixir this sounds like a reasoned and defensible, if not outright correct, position.

The proposition I'm working with is "types are more useful than people think in managing a horde of degenerate short-cut taking co-workers whose failures I will be blamed for openly and quietly regardless of actual fault". Gradual typing is an interesting and appealing compromise, I'm gonna have to give Elixir a serious try.

reply
Yes, that is a great talk. He really does an admirable job of exploring all of the reasons why people think that they want a typed language and concludes many (but not all) are not that helpful.
reply
you succumb to the fallacy that because the compiler let it through, the code wont have any error - the erlang mentality says that the compiler/CPU/everything has errors, how do you handle errors in the general sense
reply
I'm not succumbing to any such fallacy.

Compile-time checks don't obviate the need for runtime error handling, and I love the robustness of Erlang's runtime error handling. However, that doesn't change the fact that we should be catching and handling errors as early as possible, and there's a whole bunch of logic errors that you can easily catch at compile time.

reply