My primary benefit is not spending the time telling the computer things it should already know. Dev time is the most limited resource, I prefer not to spend it restating the obvious. And yes, sometimes this restatement could be complex to express.

The biggest benefit I see most static typing advocates benefiting from is IDE-hints, not compile-time checking. But IDE hints aren't what people use to advocate for static typing.

There are many reasons for different approaches - but if you want to limit it to a single thing, feel free. Just don't expect many people to be convinced, or even interested in your arguments.

Sounds like you're in favour of type inference, not dynamic typing. A lot of statically typed languages don't need you to type out type declarations of your functions.

> Dev time is the most limited resource, I prefer not to spend it restating the obvious.

But on a typical dev job, you spend 10 times more reading code than writing it. And when you read, these type declarations actually save your time.

> The biggest benefit I see most static typing advocates benefiting from is IDE-hints, not compile-time checking.

Uhm, no? I'm pretty sure it's about the guarantees that compiled languages give you - the more invariants, the better. The same logic as with immutability.