This argument is in such bad faith it's hilarious.

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.

And yet I eventually provided evidence for what I'm saying and the other party provided nothing at all.

It's not bad faith because you don't like the arguments conclusions.

I support you ReflectedImage - seems like these people just don't know how great dynamic languages can be! My team has actually seen a 30x decrease in bugs, and a 50x increase in productivity ever since switching to Python.

Well a lot of people are claiming that static typing reduces bugs compared to dynamic typing, but I haven't seen from them a shred of evidence of this.

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.

In the amount of time you’ve repeatedly said this all over this thread you could have provided a citation

Here: https://games.greggman.com/game/dynamic-typing-static-typing...

I think it's more effective to show that there is no evidence to contradict me first.

lol wow you're really something, this is literally one guy, there is TONS of research on this which contradicts his findings. This guy does a pretty good summary https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/ definitely heavier on the research wouldn't you say?

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...

Well according to most of that research I'm correct.

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?