I have yet to see a large static typed program that didn't -- somewhere -- run into the limits of static typing and contain a set of workarounds, using void* or linguistic equivalent. That's code a dynamic language doesn't need.

The only code you can be sure isn't buggy is code that doesn't exist.

void* is usually not a symptom of limits of static typing, but limits of the [type system] design or human brain. You can think of it as "ok, I give up. Anything can be passed here, proceed at your own risk, compiler will not save you here, errors will show up at runtime". Even the memory safe Rust does not do without such unsafe blocks. In dynamically typed languages that is everywhere, though. I have said this before: safety benefits of static typing show up when you are working with at least data structures, not simple variables. Imagine you have an external endpoint or library call that is specified to return a single object and does exactly that. At some time after release you are the maintenance programmer responsible for implementing spec changes:

  * The object returned no longer has member/property x, it is obtained by other means;
  * The endpoint returns list of such objects.

How sure are you that tests in dynamic language cover these cases? My experience shows that tests very rarely get designed to anticipate data changes, because data is driving test design. Which is more likely for a test: a) to test whether object returned contains keys x, y and z; b) to check if the object returned is_list() (see appendix)? Static typing covers such cases. Static typing is not something that magically saves oneself from shooting them in the foot, but is nevertheless a safety tool that CAN be used. It is of course a burden if one does not intend to use it and that is the core of the debate.

Fun thing: in the second case if your code manages to convert input list to a map and assign one returned object to a key that coincides with the removed property and map access looks syntactically the same as property access (a very specific set of assumptions, though), the bug can butterfly quite deep into the code before manifesting :)

Static typing is basically a bunch of free type-based unit tests. You can write safer programs in dynamic languages, but you need to write and maintain a lot more tests.

If the type system is not expressive enough and you have to get around it?

The claim that "dynamically type language" allows code to more closely follows the business logic has merits. And you could follow from that to claim that type system could be causing more bugs (ie less safe).