in my experience dynamically typed languages are slower to compile than dynamic ones. groovy, for example, is massively slower to compile than java (it is some

in my experience dynamically typed languages are slower to compile than dynamic ones. groovy, for example, is massively slower to compile than java (it is something like a factor of 10x in our codebase), and the whole point is literally to give you python-style code velocity. that's not to say that you can't write slow statically-typed compilers. but the strict syntax tree gives you much faster parsing/etc. dynamic languages can't avoid this either, it just does it at runtime instead. and hot-reload for function changes/etc is very possible in a similar fashion to dynamic compilers too. And if you add a space or a bracket, because of the parsing problem, you can't even notionally contain that to a single part of the AST, the whole thing has to be re-parsed. again, not that you can't make a static language compile very slowly, or that any given implementation is necessarily faster. but dynamic languages almost strictly have to do more parsing work, and have to do it more often, over larger parts of the codebase. and that's expected - static languages offload some of this "preprocessing" to the developer!