While it is technically feasible to write a maintainable and well-organized large codebase in Python, in practice the lack of static types leads to a giant mess

While it is technically feasible to write a maintainable and well-organized large codebase in Python, in practice the lack of static types leads to a giant mess. After trying to maintain a legacy system written in Python (where all the authors had left the company) for a year, I threw my hands up and moved on to a Scala shop. I vowed to never work again on any major project written in a language without static typing. I think this lesson has been learned in the broader community though. Even most of my colleagues that have used Javascript for years have moved on to Typescript and never looked back. I even disagree with the, "well it's good for small projects" line of thinking. Look - if it works there, it's only because you have net fewer bugs to catch and lines to read, so the cognitive overhead can be born. But why not dispense with that cognitive overhead in the first place and just use static types! The one exception I make here is for shell scripting. The tight integration with the command line just makes bash the best choice for some situations. But even then, I have about a 50% success rate of estimating whether or not this "little script" will ever grow to become a production application with multiple modules and components, so today I'm even wary of using shell scripts in many cases.