> I don’t know why the network would be any way special.
The network isn't special. This applies locally too. But the article we are commenting on (at least, _I_ was commenting on) is about the network, and it uses the phrase "type safety over the network" in particular.
> You parse/validate unstructured binary blobs into structured data, and what’s left _is type safety_.
That is in fact exactly what I said. The point is that at some point you started with unstructured binary blobs. As soon as data leaves the application, it is no longer "safe", and it is unsafe until it is ingested and (re)validated. So my point can be freely generalised to "type safety beyond the application boundary is a fiction". And the application boundary will always exist, whether you are working with a strongly or weakly, statically or dynamically typed language.
The network isn't special. This applies locally too. But the article we are commenting on (at least, _I_ was commenting on) is about the network, and it uses the phrase "type safety over the network" in particular.
> You parse/validate unstructured binary blobs into structured data, and what’s left _is type safety_.
That is in fact exactly what I said. The point is that at some point you started with unstructured binary blobs. As soon as data leaves the application, it is no longer "safe", and it is unsafe until it is ingested and (re)validated. So my point can be freely generalised to "type safety beyond the application boundary is a fiction". And the application boundary will always exist, whether you are working with a strongly or weakly, statically or dynamically typed language.