> It's not a very strong claim, it's due to dynamic typing enabling the writing of more concise programs. The number #1 bug elimination tool is to simply write less code.

It is a strong claim, it's also a very precise claim. Where do your numbers come from?

Haskell and the ML family of languages also permit you to write much more concise programs than many other languages and they're definitely statically typed. How do they fare in your imaginary analysis?

> As a matter of principle, I won't provide citations unless you first provide some citation that says I'm wrong first. (You won't find one)

Ok, so you're an idiot. Got it. You can't make such a strong and precise claim and not back it up, and try to turn the tables by saying "No your citation!". You just come off like a petulant child (maybe you are?). Your claim makes no sense, and anyone who has at least 5 years of experience (probably less, actually) would know that.

You've asserted there are empirical studies on the topic to back your numbers. Just provide them.