Before I even read the article, I wondered how may of the bugs detected would be due to JavaScript's implicit type coercion rather than specifically dynamic vs.

Before I even read the article, I wondered how may of the bugs detected would be due to JavaScript's implicit type coercion rather than specifically dynamic vs. static typing issues. Sadly the article doesn't seems to say, but I thought it telling that the one example they gave: function addNumbers(x, y) { return x + y } console.log(addNumbers(3, "0")) ...of a bug that type annotations can detect has nothing to do with dynamic typing! As you point out there are plenty of dynamically typed languages (e.g. Python) where this would raise an exception. Now you could make an argument that in a static vs. dynamic context yo'd be talking about a compile-time vs. a run-time error, but strictly speaking, the bug here (a function returning a nonsensical value) has nothing to do w/ the kind of type checking performed. Static/dynamic typing and strong/weak typing are orthogonal issues and it's a pet peeve of mind when people sort of muddle them together as they do in this article. FWIW, I think there are decent arguments to be made on both sides of static/dynamic divide, but weakly-typed languages have always just felt like a terrible idea to me that allows careless thinking about data types to creep in all to easily.