You mean that "static typing allow better tools"? That's a fact ;) It allows IDEs to do smarter autocomplete, better refactorings, more static error checks, etc.
"You want to switch out the horse? How are you going to get around? Show me something that has at least four legs, can run as fast, eats less and has more stamina!"
The car or the plane looses this comparison.
Point is that all that "stuff" Java programmers are used to might be missing in other languages & ecosystems. And that might be a real issue. But some of that stuff only exists in Java-land to fix issues with Java, and the fact that it's not needed is actually a feature.
I'm sure someone, somewhere, complained that the first cars didn't have feces collection system =)
This is a widely repeated myth. Static typing does enable a few additional autocomplete capabilities, but most of the other things you probably think of as fancy IDE features are completely possible for dynamic languages.
For example, using Common Lisp with emacs and SLIME, I have:
Function/method name completion, Variable name completion, Jump to definition, Show callers, Rename (heuristic, but usually better than static analysis), Extract method, All sorts of interactive debugging capabilities, Documentation lookup, and Numerous compile-time static analysis checks including type errors!
