> A typo can certainly lead to incorrect code in the most strongly typed, staticest language there is Yes but the >99% of possible typos (and nearly 100% of ty

> A typo can certainly lead to incorrect code in the most strongly typed, staticest language there is Yes but the >99% of possible typos (and nearly 100% of typos in identifier names) will be caught by the compiler. That's good enough for me to say "static typing helps with typos". > What's worse: a runtime error or no error that produces the wrong result From most bad to least bad: 1. No error, wrong behavior 2. Runtime error 3. Compile error 4. Red squiggly line telling you "this is bad" before you even compile > Running a Python project might be quicker than compiling a C++ project Yes, C++ is an insane language. You can have large C++ projects that compile fast, but you have to spend a non-zero amount of engineering effort. Generally "avoid templates" and "write the code in .cpp files, not headers" will ensure that you won't have hour-long compiles. This is a problem with C++, not with type-checking in general. > Dynamically typed languages can do better than grepping for function calls. I'd love to hear how, I was doing quite a bit of JS at my previous job (not TypeScript, couldn't convince them :) and I never found a more reliable way to find callsites/variable usages, than grepping for the function name. And even that is not 100% guarentee, since you can call a function in some pretty insane ways, anObject[`asdf${some string}`] and then good luck finding this callsite when searching for anObject.asdf123