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 !".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.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.You might say that surely that additional cost would be compensated in reducing the cost of maintenance later. Maybe but I'm not sure.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.This is quite a quantitative study which gives credence to the claims of advocates of dynamic languages.