Arguably, all dynamically typed languages are also more complex because there are huge classes of programs that are incorrect which simply would not even compile as valid programs in C++.
If complexity is based on how likely a syntactically correct program is also logically correct, then type systems remove a lot of complexity.
> Arguably, all dynamically typed languages are also more complex because there are huge classes of programs that are incorrect which simply would not even compile as valid programs in C++.
There are no programs (including ones that produce runtime failures) in a dynamically-typed language that cannot be duplicated in C++.
There are certainly dynamic-typed programs wthat will fail at runtime where the natural way to attempt to express the same idea in C++ would result in a compile time error, just as there are dynamic-typed programs that will operate correctly that are harder to express in C++ because you either have to do type gymnastics to convince the compiler of their correctness, or evade the compiler by building an interpreter for a dynamic-typed language, to do it in C++. This is a difference in where the complexity in each language lies, not the overall complexity.
> If complexity is based on how likely a syntactically correct program is also logically correct, then type systems remove a lot of complexity.
Types are not really at the syntax level. I would measure the complexity of a language by the complexity of it's grammar and the size of the standard library/amount of common idioms needed to write most programs in a reasonable way.
