>>17
Read
>>18. And maintenance on dynamically typed code written by decent programmers is nice, because there's more abstraction and generalization (requires less maintenance or less work to maintain), and you don't have to dive into pages of type definitions and stupidity. Besides, if properly modularized, the whole picture may be a piss ugly mess, but each module should be reasonably independent, and each groups of modules for a specific purpose should be independent, or you fail at abstraction — and this goes for both anal-retentive and dynamic languages. This is not to say people modularize properly. Not all have been blessed with reading SICP.
Type assertions are like shooting your foot. Hello, I'm function cudder, but I only cudder Abelsons. If you want to cudder Sussmans, I won't even try — you have to define a new function for that, or fill your code with type casting bullshit. What's the point of casting a Sussman into an Abelson, or heck, a parrot, if they can "speak"?
Seriously, static typing is like hammers for left-handed people.