[opinali]

I would rewrite that as "_explicitness_ improves readability". When I read Java code, I rarely have trouble to know what the code is doing (at least at a local scale).

Not all static-typed languages are readable because they're not all explicit. In C++ for example, even the most trivial snippet of code can be obfuscated by all sorts of abuse: operator overloading, implicit calls to copy constructors, preprocessor macros, etc. Scala suffers the same problem, perhaps even worse, doing tons of stuff automatically i.e. in a way that's not obvious by just staring at a code fragment such as an individual method. Organizations that have success writing large-scale code in such languages [I can speak for Google here], typically have careful style guides that ban the bad stuff and are strongly enforced by code review process; but in that case you're not using language X anymore, you're using some "safe subset" of X.

Of course you can't have any high-level abstraction without some tradeoff of maximum explicitness; virtual calls for example make hard to know which exact code is invoked by "just staring" at an invocation. The trick is striking a healthy balance between power and readability. Java is not perfect in this criteria (it errs a bit in the side of caution), but it's certainly much better than any dynamic-typed language.