Comparing the Same Project in Rust, Haskell, C++, Python, Scala and OCaml
I think the big big result from this study is: "Python: half the size !".<p>A dynamic language like Python is better here,  2x better. I assume similar results would apply to other dynamic languages like JavaScript, Lisp, Smalltalk, Groovy etc.<p>This does not say that static typing should not be used but I think it shows unequivocally that there is a considerable extra development cost associated with static typing.<p>You might say that surely that additional cost would be compensated in reducing the cost of maintenance later. Maybe but I'm not sure.<p>Any development effort of significant size (like writing a compiler here)  is a combination of writing new code and adapting and modifying code already written. "Maintenance" is part of development.<p>This is quite a quantitative study which gives credence to the claims of advocates of dynamic languages.