I think part of the fatigue comes from the fact that these discussions have been happening for, quite literally, decades and yet there are still only a few in-depth studies on the issues, some of which had flawed methodologies in various ways, and the conclusion was usually that there’s no statistical difference in order to claim “victory” by one side or the other. And that’s a core problem with this “dynamic vs static type” discussion: both sides tend to be looking for “victory” over the other so it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons.
I’ve been doing software professionally now for over forty years – and I’ve worked on interpreters, compilers, and source code analysis tools (quite extensively, early in my career) – and I no longer remember much of the detail of the studies from those early days, unfortunately, even tho’ the company I worked for in the static source code analysis space leaned very heavily on some Dutch(?) studies from, I believe, the 1980s about the “benefits” of static source code analysis – which, even when used on “dynamic type” languages, overlays a “static type” model and uses dataflow to perform static type inference. I’ve tried several times to find those studies partly because I want to see if the underlying research is flawed (like other dynamic vs static type studies) and whether it still stands up to inspection several decades later.
After using a wide variety of weakly and strongly typed languages, with both dynamic and static typing, over the decades, my personal feeling is that it’s almost entirely a subjective preference, with no significant, verifiable difference of outcome. I think that different languages attract different communities based on these subjective preferences, and that tends to reinforce the in-group thinking that their approach is “better”.
I know this doesn’t really answer your question, but the point I’m trying to make is that I think the discussions are inherently somewhat pointless because they tend to be so subjective. I stopped even bothering to read such discussions some years back because nothing in them sheds any light on the topic at this point.
p.s. If anyone does come across links to those studies from the '80s (or maybe even the '70s), I would like to re-read them 