IMO a lot of truths in programming are not amenable to "scientific studies".
Static typing is objectively better than dynamic typing for the vast majority of cases, but you can't capture this in a scientific experiment or study.
The only thing you can do is find people who are similarly experienced, break them up into groups (n=1 is also ok) and ask them to complete a specific project, and see how much time it takes. But even then there are so many caveats. The experiment must be set up such that the presense of extensive library support for a particular task is not a confounding factor. There's also the open question of how do you measure these people's skills before the experiment begins?
Your feelings are often a good heuristic. If something makes you feel depressed, it's because your mind has gathered enough information from past experience to know the situation is hopeless. It's your mind discouraging you from wasting your energy on a pointless activity.
This is actually the case, lol. Whether it is the extra cognitive load of not always knowing the types, or whether it actually makes things go faster - IDK, but I definitely want the types.
Static typing is objectively better than dynamic typing for the vast majority of cases, but you can't capture this in a scientific experiment or study.
The only thing you can do is find people who are similarly experienced, break them up into groups (n=1 is also ok) and ask them to complete a specific project, and see how much time it takes. But even then there are so many caveats. The experiment must be set up such that the presense of extensive library support for a particular task is not a confounding factor. There's also the open question of how do you measure these people's skills before the experiment begins?