> Given empirical studies, the current working hypothesis should be that if static types do have a positive effect on correctness, it is a small one. Which use

> Given empirical studies, the current working hypothesis should be that if static types do have a positive effect on correctness, it is a small one. Which use cases, languages and static type systems are you referring to? The context is very important, especially when seeking to draw general conclusions from empirical studies. As someone who has previously posted extolling the merits of static analysis, I'm very surprised at your position regrding static types. Static types help to constrain a language and enable reasoning, either by additional static analysis or otherwise. It is precisely the flexibility of dynamic languages that makes them difficult to reason about and difficult to build correct software in. This is why the use of dynamic languages are mostly banned in the defense industry. Static types clearly help with composition (one of the complaints with Julia), especially at scale. How many academic empirical studies considered multimillion-line code bases? I submit for evidence a lot of expensive type-retrofitting projects such as Facebook Hack, Microsoft Typescript or Python types, which demonstrate that many companies have or had real problems with dynamic languages at any kind of scale.