> This is why I can't help but mentally roll my eyes when people say that static typing makes programming slower. No sane person says that. Also, static typin

> This is why I can't help but mentally roll my eyes when people say that static typing makes programming slower. No sane person says that. Also, static typing is not a thing (or at least, what you call "static typing" doesn't mean anything). Type checking can be static. And in this context it means that it happens before the program is run, so it doesn't affect the speed of the program. Your conjectures about how static typing (but probably actually checking) saves time developing is also nonsense. Static checking is helpful for analyzing programs, of course, but isn't the primary driver behind program quality, not even the second most important one. But, most importantly, quality typically only adversely affects the time to market. Working towards more correct programs will make the whole process slower and more expensive. Perhaps, at some very bottom of the quality pyramid you can find examples of the opposite -- when the program is so bad that it actually negatively impacts time to market and that metric can be improved by marginal effort in quality control... but if you are out of the swamp, this doesn't work anymore, and any increase in quality will negatively impact ttm, cost, number of employees needed etc.