I feel we&#x27;re getting into strawman assertion territory here.<p>I&#x27;ve worked with statically typed and dynamically typed languages, and the fact is that there&#x27;s some overhead involved in static typing. You pay that overhead upfront in order to hopefully prevent some bugs (and possibly get a performance boost) later on.<p>If you haven&#x27;t tried both, you probably won&#x27;t notice the mental overhead.<p>I&#x27;ve also found that this difference sometimes result in people approaching things differently, with static typing leaning itself more to specifying things upfront compared to jumping straight into the code with dynamic typing.<p>Sometimes this surely means things end up being clearer with static typing, but I&#x27;ve also seen the reverse happen, more often than you&#x27;d think, because some kinds of code have a lot of messy little details - with a dynamic language like Python you can model, or perhaps rather avoid modeling, those little local details by just stuffing things onto something you&#x27;re already passing along, while the static typer would have to think harder about how to fit them in without polluting the overall data structures.<p>When you&#x27;re rewriting things a couple of times as your understanding of the problem evolves, it can certainly help to be able to not worry too much about those details.