When I go looking for myself what I found was studies saying that dynamic typing reduces development time by 2.5x and bugs per software feature by 2.5x.
So perhaps one of these people claiming that static typing reduces bugs over dynamic typing, could provide the slightest bit of evidence to backup their claims?
Is that too much to ask @spoils19?
But I'm pretty sure they will just find the exact same figures as me.
I think it's more effective to show that there is no evidence to contradict me first.
He also misses the biggest add of typing your code which is that other people can understand it better. This is often lost on junior programmers...
See: "Work In Progress: an Empirical Study of Static Typing in Ruby; Daly, M; Sazawal, V; Foster, J."
See: "Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk vs. ... An Experiment in Software Prototyping Productivity; Hudak, P; Jones, M."
Lisp - A dynamically typed language had the lowest development time by a factor of 2.5x. Seems to be the same figure I'm giving, fancy that!
"He also misses the biggest add of typing your code which is that other people can understand it better."
Nope.
See: "How Do API Documentation and Static Typing Affect API Usability? Endrikat, S.; Hanenberg, S.; Robbes, Romain; Stefik, A."
You need documentation and whilst Java students may study with dynamic typing since they haven't been taught it, it's pretty clear that on it's own static typing provides almost no useful documentation.
"This is often lost on junior programmers..." I'm far more experience than you, which is why I'm calling out the BS.
I think you will find that the research suggests that static typing and dynamic typing have a similar bug rate per line of code.
See: "A Large Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github; Ray, B; Posnett, D; Filkov, V; Devanbu, P"
Once you combine that knowledge with the knowledge that dynamically typed programs have less lines per feature.
Relational Lisp 274 compared to Ada 767 or C++ 1105.
Dynamic typing wins out because the programs are smaller, making them faster to write and contain less bugs per software feature.
The link you posted confirms it.
Do you understand that you are wrong?
Here's my much better argument: Instead of using dynamic typing, eating babies reduces the incidence of bugs in code by 1000x. If you don't believe me and would like me to cite a source, you first provide a citation saying something different to what I'm saying and I'll provide my citations. Come on, you can do it! (Hint: You can't)
If it really was a strong claim, you could disprove it easily.
It's not bad faith because you don't like the arguments conclusions.
Well I don't know since I haven't read studies about Haskell and the ML family of languages. I suspect good things about Rust's borrow checker but I still don't know for sure.
I don't believe it is a strong claim. That's entirely in your head. It might not be a claim you like but that doesn't make it a strong claim.
So provide a citation saying something different to what I'm saying and I'll provide my citations. You have asked for a citation, so the first thing you can do is provide one of your own. Come on, you can do it! (Hint: You can't)
If it really was a strong claim, you could disprove it easily.