> Dynamic languages, on the other hand, suffer from these drawbacks to a lesser extent, but they lack compile-time checks.

I.e. "The two or three popular dynamic programing languages I know don't have any compile-time checks".

Even my modest dialect (utterly not focused on type at all) Lisp can do a thing or two:

  1> (compile-toplevel '(let (x) (cons a)))
  ** expr-1:1: warning: unbound variable a
  ** expr-1:1: warning: cons: too few arguments: needs 2, given 1
  ** expr-1:1: warning: let: variable x unused
  #<sys:vm-desc: 8da2ac0>
  2> (compile-toplevel '(awk ((let (x y) (rng x y)) (prn))))
  ** expr-2:1: warning: rng: form x
                             is moved out of the apparent scope
                             and thus cannot refer to variables (x)
  ** expr-2:1: warning: rng: form y
                             is moved out of the apparent scope
                             and thus cannot refer to variables (y)
  ** expr-2:1: warning: unbound variable x
  ** expr-2:1: warning: unbound variable y
  ** expr-2:1: warning: let: variable y unused
  ** expr-2:1: warning: let: variable x unused
  #<sys:vm-desc: 8e6f3c0>
  3> (compile-toplevel 'foo.bar)
  ** expr-3:1: warning: qref: bar isn't the name of a struct slot
  ** expr-3:1: warning: unbound variable foo
  #<sys:vm-desc: 8e8dc80>

Common Lisp implementations like SBCL have sophisticated type inference.

Dynamic programs can do things wrong in ways that are statically obvious.