[mazesc]

Any language with static types should be easier to make sense of, though. I get it's faster to write dynamically typed code, but your point is specifically about reading code, which I can't follow.

Of course Python nowadays has support for static types too.

[weberc2]

I program in Python professionally, and I agree with your sentiment in general. Dynamic types hurt readability. Also, in general, Python is faster to develop with than most statically typed languages. There are two nits that I’d like to pick: the first and lesser is that Python’s static typing story is in an alpha stage. It’s not ready for prime time (but I’m cheering it on) and Python shouldn’t be considered as having a static type system yet.

The second is that I realized that Go is a statically typed language that is quite a lot easier to develop with than Python and other dynamic languages. It strikes a good balance between protecting you from mistakes while not making it hard to express your intent (most of the time, anyway). As I advance and become more concerned about my time, I find myself reaching for Go more often because the static type system has my back. I spend less time writing unit tests or iteratively running my code to make sure things still work. (People said this about Haskell and Rust and OCaml too, so I understand the skepticism dynamic language proponents have for claims like these). The deployment, dependency management, and performance stories are also quite a lot nicer in Go, and these are undervalued components of “developing velocity” as well, especially if you’re on a small team. It really changes the calculus for static vs dynamic language discussions.

[realharo]

>I get it's faster to write dynamically typed code

I would dispute that, but I guess it depends on one's workflow. Different workflows work better with different kinds of type systems.