I think the assumption that static typing means things take more time requires justification. Usually I see the assertion given from people who naturally take l

I think the assumption that static typing means things take more time requires justification. Usually I see the assertion given from people who naturally take longer getting things to pass compilation just because they're not used to using it. When I use dynamically typed languages I find footguns in undefineds and empty strings where others wouldn't. I also have to write tests - which themselves may have bugs - for things that static analysis could do on its own. Why use expensive dev time for this instead of cheap CPU time? >Underlying that model seems to be a concept of software like a sort of renaissance master's marble statue, error free and perfect at time of production. Most of the time I'm writing code isn't for the first implementation of a green-field feature and, really, most programming problems aren't that hard in terms of logic flow. If I refactor and the type system and static checking don't complain, I can be reasonably sure it's going to work. And I've seen too many 'temporary hacks' that became forgotten and leaked to review or production.