I used to think this was true (as a developer of a lot of generic Julia code and small data analysis applications).
But now as a developer of larger amounts of "application style" code, I'm not so sure. In an application, you've got control of the whole stack of libraries and a fairly precise knowledge of which types will flow through the more "business logic" parts of the system. Moreover, you'd really like static type checking to discover bugs early and this is starting to be possible with the likes of the amazing JET.jl. However, in the presence of a lot of duck typing and dynamic dispatch I expect static type inference to fail in important cases.
Static type checking brings so much value for larger scale application work that I'm expecting precise type constraints to become popular for this kind of non-generic code as the tooling matures.
But now as a developer of larger amounts of "application style" code, I'm not so sure. In an application, you've got control of the whole stack of libraries and a fairly precise knowledge of which types will flow through the more "business logic" parts of the system. Moreover, you'd really like static type checking to discover bugs early and this is starting to be possible with the likes of the amazing JET.jl. However, in the presence of a lot of duck typing and dynamic dispatch I expect static type inference to fail in important cases.
Static type checking brings so much value for larger scale application work that I'm expecting precise type constraints to become popular for this kind of non-generic code as the tooling matures.