Developper productivity is order of magnitude more important than performance on most software. Dynamic typing is by design more productive at first. Static ty

Developper productivity is order of magnitude more important than performance on most software. Dynamic typing is by design more productive at first. Static type systems might allow better productivity on the long term (maintenability, scalability of à big, complex codebase). If this advantage of static typing is a myth, or a truth (and by how much does it increase average productivity, for which project size?) is a really interesting question and I don't know any scientific study on the topic. I did read a study that showed that static types catch only a few percentage of bugs and that practices such as systematic code reviews, documentation/comments, unit testing and integration testing, and methods such as TDD, each of them has a far bigger impact than static typing. (it would be nice if they had measured too the impact of fuzzing, analytics, debuggers and language features such as having a GC). This study does not say that using all those practices obscolete the need of static typing but it show the irrationality that many "purist/religious" developpers have by claiming writing a program in a dynamically typed language is a maintenance nightmare while not saying anything about enforcing the said practices despite them having empirically a far bigger impact on bug catching and thus "code quality".