> Type errors are such a small time loss as a developer It's not about the errors themselves, it's about the way that having a strong type system improves qual

> Type errors are such a small time loss as a developer It's not about the errors themselves, it's about the way that having a strong type system improves quality of life in general. For instance, in a duck-typed language, you may have code which runs correctly 99/100 times, but with one specific case it fails due to type issues. These kinds of issues are incredibly frustrating and time-consuming to debug. Also requiring type designations in function signatures makes code self-documenting. You can just look at the code which someone else wrote, and know exactly what the inputs and outputs are. In a dynamically typed setting, there's often guess work involved in exactly what's accepted by a function, and unless it's very well documented you might have to go into the implementation to see exactly what is happening. I didn't read the articles you linked in detail, but at least the first I would take with a grain of salt since they use Java as the exemplar for typed programming. Java is notorious for having a cumbersome type system. In my experience, without types you might get a slightly faster time to first result - but in the long term, once a codebase gets to even medium size, types save you much more time than they cost. Especially since they become automatic after a bit of experience and you don't even think about it anymore. There's a reason Python and Javascript are trying to add types, and why none of the most interesting languages of the past decade have been weekly typed.