[kluck]

Its a fact: Using a dynamically typed language you have to write more code (tests etc.) to achieve the situation where you catch the same kind of bugs that a statically typed language would inform you during analysis. Strong and weak typing is a different thing.

And I agree, it is not that simple, but only if you take other factors into account.

[m0skit0]

Why wouldn't you take other factors into account? Or better, why would you take this factor in particular as the only factor that matters?

[kluck]

For me that is the most important factor, because it directly influences the amount of code produced. Less code means less bugs and less code to read/understand when getting back into a codebase.

[m0skit0]

Then I guess you chose the wrong side. Dynamically-typed languages produce less code precisely because you don't need to specify the types. E.g. Scala is more verbose than Clojure.

[justthistime_]

I'm not sure that Scala code + types is more verbose than Clojure code + tests. (Which is what the OP argued.)

[m0skit0]

You need tests everywhere, statically typed doesn't mean you don't need to test.