There's some argument in favor of clarity I think. Statically typed languages often require a lot of additional annotation of types and more awkward logical st

There's some argument in favor of clarity I think. Statically typed languages often require a lot of additional annotation of types and more awkward logical structures that interfere with readability. Obviously there is a counter weight that not having types be explicit creates its own set of problems. If type inference was perfect and languages were able to support things like union types seamlessly I think it would be possible to get close. But I've used languages with quite good inference (Kotlin) and it is still regularly a battle with the compiler to get it to believe something is "safe" which actually can only ever be safe but requires me to add extraneous syntax all over my code just to "convince" the compiler. I quite like languages with incremental typing for this reason - you can create a statically defined interface and data structures but if you already know constraints are satisfied you don't need to pamper the compiler to continuously reassure it inside the function. But these would fall into your definition of languages "with static analysis" I imagine.