for some reason people are able to use huge undocumented common lisp monolithic projects from the 90s without much effort and without setting their computer on fire. why do you think that is? i mean, given your world view, why would people even think about doing this for a codebase that doesnt have static types?
sure but not in a sense that rust is. my point is that it is entirely possible to build good software with substantial code bases in dynamically typed languges and i used common lisp as an example. in fact i dont know of one common lisp code base that turned to a dumpster fire because of typing problems. instead i find the opposite true: old forgotten code can often be resurrected because the language promotes clear coding and interactive introspection
This interactive introspection is usually facilitated by dynamic types and actual types in the software. For example large parts of the Lisp software in the 80s were already written in an object-oriented way, where the code was structured around explicit classes. Means: one sees the classes/methods both in the source code and in the running code. The source is far from 'untyped'.
For example the Filesystem Browser (FSEdit) from 1980 was written in Flavors. It actually uses an explicit OOP system with hierarchical classes.
there are plenty of disaster code bases in both dynamic and static typed languages. my cause for mentioning common lisp was use of an example i personally know of where a dynamic language (albeit one with strong and static typing support available) produces some really high quality code that can stand the test of time