What you are saying all breaks down with larger codebases.

A codebase with 1000 people working on it benefits dramatically from static typing. Everyone who has tried to do the same thing with dynamic typing has learned that. And quite a few companies that started off with Python had to rewrite everything in Java.

If you honestly think that nobody ever passes the wrong type, you've never worked on a complex dynamic codebase with a lot of people. It happens all the time.

The more modern solution is to break the large codebases into self contained microservices. In which case dynamic typing scales indefinitely.

I've worked on dynamically typed codebases for a long time. Passing the wrong type is very rare. I mean how would the code pass the unit tests if it was passing the wrong type?

How are the interfaces between these microservices defined? Without types? Lol

The interfaces do have types (and also proper versioning) but the internal code to the microservices does not.

Think about that for another second and see if you can spot the obvious huge flaw there.

I think you will be disappointed with the basic types: int, str, bool being used in one line per 1000 lines of code.

> Passing the wrong type is considerably rarer than the wrong value so need not be considered.

Passing the wrong value doesn't just happen randomly. It happens because of errors in logic many of which can be caught with a strong static type system.

But most can not.

K, I'll take your word for it.