I’m only responding to the claim that dynamic types act as a forcing function to produce simpler code, not the static vs dynamic distinction more broadly. It’s

I’m only responding to the claim that dynamic types act as a forcing function to produce simpler code, not the static vs dynamic distinction more broadly. It’s possible there are papers on the topic, but I’m not aware of them. The evidence I’m speaking to is the complexity of the respective types themselves, ie either: - those produced in the course of developing a given software package with static types as an explicit part of the development process, versus - those produced post hoc to document the apparent interfaces of an equivalent package which has been produced without explicit types One might call foul, by saying that this criterion favors static types by evaluating the complexity in terms of static types. But the reason I think it’s a fair comparison is because the dynamic interface does have a static type representation, even if it has to be conjured into notation post hoc… in much the same way as a data store model does have a schema even if it’s not formally specified as such.