It's important to remember that the terms "statically typed" and "dynamically typed" cover a huge range of different language features. To have a good discussi

It's important to remember that the terms "statically typed" and "dynamically typed" cover a huge range of different language features. To have a good discussion about the tradeoffs, it's better to talk about individual features rather than "statically typed" or "dynamically typed". For example, Like puzzle pieces with shapes that we can observe fit together, we can think of types as specifying a grammar for programs that ‘make sense’. All programming languages have a grammar for programs that make sense (it's specified by the parser). Algebraic data types give you a grammar for values that make sense. Separately, a type checker assigns types to expressions and checks that they're consistent. You can have algebraic data types without a type checker (e.g. Racket's 2htdp/abstraction), and you can have a type checker without algebraic data types. You can also have constraints on values that are too complex to be easily checked at compile time (e.g. clojure.spec) or that can be checked at compile time but only incompletely (e.g. Erlang's -type and Dialyzer). Anyway, I don't mean to be critical of the article: it does a good job covering the high-level tradeoffs. I just think people are too quick to generalize their experience with particular languages to entire classes of language features.