People using dynamic languages deeply, especially library and framework authors, regularly write abstract/generic code for which a suitable type declaration would be mind-bendingly difficult in a very sophisticated type system and impossible in a weak one. You can argue that this is ill-advised! But static typing with normally-powered type systems leads to more voluminous and more purpose-specific code. Very powerful type systems are possible, but treated as academic and too difficult to use in the real world.
A way this often gets worked around is code generation. Anywhere you have or reach for codegen in a static language, you probably could have used a plain old function in a dynamic language.
I think this is a little disingenuous. It’s not that the type system makes highly abstract/generic code difficult, it’s more that the specific ways people are used to writing that type of code in dynamically typed languages doesn’t lend itself well to adding type annotations. But I think you’d be hard pressed to find many places where Haskell programmers, for example, haven’t found a different way to express whatever the Python code is achieving while also allowing for type annotations.
Thank you for the thoughtful response; this is something I had failed to consider (since, as you anticipated, I try to avoid creating deep or highly dynamic abstractions), and I do regularly throw in the towel on complex or deeply nested types (either by just omitting them out using a "close enough" type in Python, or by using trait objects in Rust - looking at you, `Map<Chain<RangeInclusive<...>>>`).
Not GP, but for instance, Python web frameworks are oriented around decorators, and Rust web frameworks are oriented around macros. The syntax looks pretty similar, but like GP says, in dynamic languages you're using a (higher order) function, and in static languages you're using code generation for the same purpose.
I am confused. "Code gen" is a fuzzy concept once you have a virtual machine because you can do it at runtime. This is how mocking works in Java and C#. What you describe already exists in Java and C# -- decorators for web frameworks. I would not describe Java nor C# as dynamic. I describe them as "stricter" (types) and Python as "weaker" (types). To quote Norman Ramsey: "Every time I see a question about "strong" or "weak" typing, I kill a kitten." :-)
A way this often gets worked around is code generation. Anywhere you have or reach for codegen in a static language, you probably could have used a plain old function in a dynamic language.