[eropple]

I prefer static typing because those assurances reduce the number of things I have to manage--they mean I must keep less state in my head. I do not assume that it guarantees things that it does not.

Attributing your coworkers' "if it builds, it works" assumptions to static typing strikes me as incorrect. Static typing, at least in Java, ensures only a (relatively) small set of conditions are true; I don't think you can really blame that for increased/additional assumptions on the part of sub-par programmers.

[stcredzero]

Either way, you end up keeping lots of things in your head. With dynamic langs, you do have to think about types and use them conservatively. With languages like Java -- the same. No toolset is going to work well unless the dev is on top of things and good at using the tool well.

I've found that debugging in a dynamic environment is great for managing types in a well architected system. It falls down in a poorly architected one, in ways that static typing would not ave allowed. However, in such systems, "it compiles so it must be correct," programmers just get stuck in deeper snow.

[eropple]

This is true, but I personally find that the tools available in decent statically/strongly-typed languages--C#, Scala--can do a fair amount in encouraging the Right Thing in ways that dynamically typed languages (especially dynamically weakly typed languages) can't.

I'm even becoming more and more fond of C++ because of the constraints that you can work in with proper use of templates; my only beef there is that the error messages when you do the Wrong Thing are often not conducive to understanding what the Right Thing is.