> With "dynamic typing" there is no compiler to figure out the types for you. There is only the runtime to print a stack trace (if you're lucky) and bail out.

> With "dynamic typing" there is no compiler to figure out the types for you. There is only the runtime to print a stack trace (if you're lucky) and bail out. This is just incorrect. Plenty, if not most, dynamically-typed languages are compiled. Indeed even the idea that there's a clean dichotomy between compiled and interpreted is an outdated idea: I'm not aware of any production-quality language implementations which run tree-walk interpreters entirely without compilation. Modern "interpreters" typically compile to bytecode but in some cases even can compile to native code, they simply do so in a just-in-time manner. These compilation steps are quite capable of applying type systems. For example, if you run a Python script, you can see the results of compilation cached in .pyc files (these will be either in the same directory as the source files, or in your __pycache__ folder, depending on your configuration). > The whole point of types is to be able to check things without running the program, because exercising every possible code path becomes increasingly untenable at scale. Is it? I would argue that the point of types is to report errors at the place where they occur, rather than doing the wrong thing silently and reporting an error elsewhere, or simply behaving incorrectly. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it fall, does it really fall at all? If a bug happens on a code path, and nobody exercises that code path, is there really a bug?