I&#x27;m firmly on the static typing side of the fence.  But I think you&#x27;re ignoring what others are saying about where dynamic typing shines:  Where you don&#x27;t know what you&#x27;re doing <i>to the point that you don&#x27;t know what the proper types look like.</i>  You can try things faster in a dynamic language in that situation, because you can sweep the &quot;don&#x27;t know what the types look like&quot; part under the rug, and experiment with algorithms, and let that experimentation show you what the types ought to be.  In some situations, that can be faster&#x2F;easier&#x2F;better than trying, from first principles and analysis, to determine what the types must be.<p>I think the difference is that I (and, I suspect, you) spend little of our time in that mode, and much more in the mode where static types can save your behind.  (Nothing like working on a million-line code base in its second decade to make you value static types.)