Your analogy is spot on, because both are true. Regulation increases costs, and it may also reduce costs. Static checking increases costs, and it may also reduc

Your analogy is spot on, because both are true. Regulation increases costs, and it may also reduce costs. Static checking increases costs, and it may also reduces costs. The whole point of what I wrote is that the net benefit depends on the tradeoff that is made between the two costs and that tradeoff will depend entirely on context and details, which excludes the possibility of coming to an aggregate conclusion (such as static typing is always better, or regulation is always good). For example, I would never do exploratory data analysis using Scala, but I would also never write a production system in R. In each scenario it is useful to separate the various costs and benefits and weigh them against each other, as opposed to taking an ideological stand like "STATIC TYPING OR DIE".