Agreed. The unconditional nature of the statement detracts from its message. Had it said: "we see benefits in static types for APIs, and it's working for us - here's why" it would have had some credibility. And provided some insight on why it might work for others too.
Contrast with DHH's articulation on the corecursive podcast [0]. Paraphrasing:
* Dynamic types work for him
* People don't all think the same. So static typing is fine too.
Jeremy Howard made essentially the same point on TWIML AI [1].
The point is there's far more to success than static vs dynamic typing. Personal preferences, team skills, culture, task at hand, nature of domain, commercial imperatives, code base size, and many other things besides all influence choice.
To suggest there's a single, global answer to static vs dynamic - whether for languages or APIs - is a misguided and unhelpful simplification.
Contrast with DHH's articulation on the corecursive podcast [0]. Paraphrasing:
* Dynamic types work for him * People don't all think the same. So static typing is fine too.
Jeremy Howard made essentially the same point on TWIML AI [1].
The point is there's far more to success than static vs dynamic typing. Personal preferences, team skills, culture, task at hand, nature of domain, commercial imperatives, code base size, and many other things besides all influence choice.
To suggest there's a single, global answer to static vs dynamic - whether for languages or APIs - is a misguided and unhelpful simplification.
[0]: https://corecursive.com/045-david-heinemeier-hansson-softwar...
[1]: https://twimlai.com/whats-next-for-fast-ai-w-jeremy-howard/