I think what the person replying was saying was not about static typing being easier for the compiler to understand, but the fact types being documented in some

I think what the person replying was saying was not about static typing being easier for the compiler to understand, but the fact types being documented in some way(whether it be embedded in syntax or via documentation) make code far more readable. Python was my first programming language(cliche, I know) and I didn't understand the whole "static typing is good" thing until I learnt languages like C, C++, C#, and rust. Python also introduced type hints and made them a valid part of syntax for good reason. You'd typically end up writing a docstring with the return type of a function and the types of the parameters anyway, which is what the person replying to you was presumably referring to. It's not about passing in an int instead of an array, but rather but being able to figure out what a function wants without needing a stackoverflow thread or having to search through tons of documentation for something that would be otherwise trivial in statically typed languages where the function declaration tells you quite a bit about a function. Hence it's safe to say that types documented in code in some way are very useful for humans, and if you have issues with statically typed programming languages, there's a chance you were not documenting your code enough already.