I normally don't respond to snark but what the heck I'm feeling festive. Your stated "big problems": * developers often aren’t sure what it does It's easier

I normally don't respond to snark but what the heck I'm feeling festive. Your stated "big problems": * developers often aren’t sure what it does It's easier to understand what code is doing in a strongly typed system. Just trying to find where a method is defined in a dynamic language is often difficult and time-consuming. * how to organize the code Strongly typed languages generally encourage better code modularity. Not a panacea, but a help. * aren’t designing for maintainability Automatic, safe refactoring is a crucial tool in the maintainability toolkit. Again, not a panacea, but a huge help. I understand there are always bigger problems, and adopting a strongly typed approach after a mountain of technical debt has already accumulated may not be worth it. And if your developers can't write good, maintainable code regardless of static/dynamic types, that is certainly a bigger problem. But none of this means that static types don't solve big problems, which was the assertion I disagreed with.