Let me guess, you love dynamic languages, right?

I really wish we would all stop ourselves when we're about to make a statement of the form "Great programmers do X (which I happen to do)". Without any rationale to back it up, its just ego-stroking.

No true scotsman much?

I don't know how you could contrive what I said to be cognitive dissonance.

If you have a team of N good programmers, you can probably write without static typing. If you have a team of N-1 good programmers and 1 bad programmer, you should really use a language static typing.

I just read the first part of your comment as "no true programmer would need no filthy static type checking". Sorry if I misunderstood.

I find it hard to correlate use of static typing with development experience, that's all.

If you are a good programmer, you don't need typing, you don't need interfaces, you don't need many things that make bad programmers better programmers.

You might still use them, and there's nothing entirely wrong with that, but you probably don't need them.

This is why so many people have problems writing JavaScript.

Even if you're a good programmer, typing and interfaces make refactoring quicker and typos easier to find.

This is why so many people have problems writing in JavaScript.

Typing makes refactoring quicker only if you're relying on it. If you're not, then it will actually make refactoring slower.

Interfaces will not make refactoring faster, just easier.

> Typing makes refactoring quicker only if you're relying on it.

As opposed to?