This analogy (as any analogy) is wrong. A slightly better one would be "an expensive camera doesn't automatically make you a great photographer".

There's a long running tradition of languages with static typing and better type systems making fun of dynamically typed languages and those with "worse" type systems.

A good example is[1]: """ It's 2018 - static type systems are not optional... It is especially worrying that these people think they are gaining velocity by trading correctness. """

And yet I'm seeing more and more examples where (often preceived) correctness is often offset by much bigger problems. Another example is mini-thread on how horrible DateTime is in Haskell: https://twitter.com/chris__martin/status/956002730778288128

[1] https://twitter.com/timperrett/status/957493915937943554

Any weaknesses with the Haskell "time" library have nothing to do with static types in particular nor the language in general.

To stretch your analogy further "Having an expensive camera does not prohibit you from also taking photography lessons".

> Any weaknesses with the Haskell "time" library have nothing to do with static types in particular nor the language in general.

Hence, my original point: This goes to show that no amount of static typing can save you from implementing badly-designed software.

If your point was literally "no amount of static typing can save you from implementing badly-designed software" then yes, that's correct and beyond challenge. I perceived a hint of "and therefore we may as well just use dynamic types" or "but proponents of static types are too ideological to accept this" in your subtext. I apologise if I was mistaken in my perception.

I have to admit, there was a hint of such subtext :)