I tried to dig a little bit deeper into this out of curiosity and found the following pieces supporting Robert's statement.
An Experiment About Static and Dynamic Type Systems:
* »Debugging of type-errors is faster than handling static typed programming languages.«
* »Development time in dynamic languages is shorter.«
* »There is hardly any knowledge about...the impact of static type systems on the development time or resulting quality for a piece of software.«
An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl:
* »No difference in program reliability [between static and dynamic type languages].«
* »Programming effort and length is less in dynamic languages.«
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Dynamic Typing for Practical Programs:
My 2 cents on this: The internet is built on http which is not type-safe by design and doing exceptionally well. At the end of the day it’s the old question of developer vs. machine performance. Statically typed languages are probably running faster whereas dynamically typed languages make developers faster. What is the problem at hand? Choose your programming language depending on the problem / solution. If Ruby3 will allow me to be chosen for even more problems due to some (optional) type system, great!
Am 21.04.2019 um 13:42 schrieb Robert Klemme <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
[…] I am still not convinced that static typing is that big win. […]