Of course, statically typed code is usually around 3 times the number of lines of code as it's dynamically typed equivalent.
This is due to lots of boilerplate, complex types, usage of abstract base classes, adding code for testing purposes into the production codebase due to disregarding language features such as mocking, etc...
The development time and bugs in a program are directly proportional to the total number of lines written.
You write 3x the number of lines of code using a verbouse code style then you have 3x the number of bugs. Static type checking only catches around 5% of bugs. It's not a significant debugging tool.
If instead of writing static types and all the involed boilerplate required to make it work, you instead invested that type in unit tests and proper qa, you will always come out ahead.
This is due to lots of boilerplate, complex types, usage of abstract base classes, adding code for testing purposes into the production codebase due to disregarding language features such as mocking, etc...
The development time and bugs in a program are directly proportional to the total number of lines written.
You write 3x the number of lines of code using a verbouse code style then you have 3x the number of bugs. Static type checking only catches around 5% of bugs. It's not a significant debugging tool.
If instead of writing static types and all the involed boilerplate required to make it work, you instead invested that type in unit tests and proper qa, you will always come out ahead.