What did I make an equivalence between? Large codebases are hard, period. That is all I am saying. Having worked on 100k LOC systems in static and in dynamic, I will not claim either has a benefit. That is just hard.
Static analysis is, of course, good. If that is static typing or otherwise. So is running the code making sure it does what you want when running.
What is not a huge help, is a byzantine type hierarchy that nobody understands. Which is all too familiar to me from any codebase I have worked on with folks that dived straight into the type system before they knew what they were doing in the system.
Many strong type proponents have moved to the categories view. If you know the category type of what you are doing, the idea is that that will prevent bugs. But... that hasn't been my experience. Often it just hides what is actually happening behind another layer of jargon. Jargon that is not native to the problem being solved.
Then do said survey? Find empirical evidence and share it.
My experience, sadly, is the louder a dev on the team is about either dynamic or static typing, the more likely that dev's code is something nobody else in the team wants to work with.
You should have more than one point of data. How many software systems? How old were they? How many contributors? How many bugs in each? Were any of them green field?
Dude, you have already made up your mind, so I am not going to do any homework for you that you yourself aren't performing. You are not my boss, or anyone's boss here
Large codebases tend to be harder than smaller ones within one language. But language to language, static typing is such a significant help that it makes a large difference.
I’ve been writing in python for 18 years, and yet I can far more quickly get into a large typescript codebase than a python one of equivalent size.
Static typing is a tool I like. I don't think we have evidence that it is an obvious win. And I've bounced off of several typescript code bases hard. To the point that I currently hate typescript. Despite being impressed with some of its capabilities.
Which is again to say ymmv. Bad code is bad with or without static types.
Static analysis is, of course, good. If that is static typing or otherwise. So is running the code making sure it does what you want when running.
What is not a huge help, is a byzantine type hierarchy that nobody understands. Which is all too familiar to me from any codebase I have worked on with folks that dived straight into the type system before they knew what they were doing in the system.
Many strong type proponents have moved to the categories view. If you know the category type of what you are doing, the idea is that that will prevent bugs. But... that hasn't been my experience. Often it just hides what is actually happening behind another layer of jargon. Jargon that is not native to the problem being solved.