> Static typing is an ideology, almost a religion Dynamic typing is also an ideology by your definition. The ideology is that you must never add static types t

> Static typing is an ideology, almost a religion Dynamic typing is also an ideology by your definition. The ideology is that you must never add static types to your source code. > Because static typing could be easily left as an optional choice throughout the code base but no mainstream statically type PL I know of leaves it optional. I thought TypeScript, Flow, and Python 3 (MyPy) all support optional static typing. Plus, most languages have an escape hatch to treat an object as untyped or as a general type. >"See! A static type would have fixed this issue." and then from there conclude that static typing is a good idea. Why is that not a good conclusion? In the context of the article, static types would have prevented 38% of bugs at Airbnb.