For the second paper, looks like the test task is quite small and the language used requires more work from developer than a modern static type system with type

For the second paper, looks like the test task is quite small and the language used requires more work from developer than a modern static type system with type inference and generics. Still the difference between static and dynamic typed variants is rather small. I wonder if the situation would change if the project took weeks or months instead of hours, but that would be an expensive experiment. Also, it would be interesting to see if type inference and generics would increase productivity but in the real world we are stuck with Java and Go anyway. Other take home message is that the famous 10x programmer was found in both groups. The one with dynamic language was faster, just as the argument for dynamic typing goes.