how is static typing lacking evidence? don't we use that in rust to prevent the existence of large swaths of errors vs say C? i know for sure when turning on typescript for some javascript projects at work we found many issues, those all seem like wins? Why when I look at some dynamic languages say for example clojure i see stuff like type annotations in their core libraries, and then spec's to help provide a lot of what a type system can do? do you have maybe a counter argument to this fellow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTl7Jn_kmio

The usual things that are brought up in this kind of HN thread are that studies don't show an advantage in delivered software, and tradeoffs / limitations of type systems are bad tradeoffs, and the vast majority of things caught by static type systems are trivial errors that are easily caught anyway, and that these days a lot of interfaces are APIs between systems that the static type systems don't cover anyway.

Thanks for the interesting sounding talk link. It's "Types are like the Weather, Type Systems are like Weathermen - Matthias Felleisen" from ClojureTV, for those who rarely click on youtube links. Mathias Felleisen a well known Racket guy, author of How to Design Programs, etc.

It probably helps in Rust.

Perhaps it helps more in certain specific languages or contexts.

The studies found no general “overall cost” improvement; in other words, the extra correctness came at the cost of tons more boilerplate and “fighting the type system”