> it will not crumble under its own weight

It is possible to make it not crumble under its own weight, right? I had my share of Lua nightmare with more than 100K lines of code back when I was a gamedev [1], and it seems that there are some requirements in order to remain sane with the growth. Thankfully there are now multiple working type checkers for Lua, unlike when I had to built my own.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18351788 is my canonical answer, but I have written many other comments about Lua which should be easy to search.

You can make anything, even assembler, not "crumble under its own weight" if you, the developer, bring enough discipline and care to it.

The main reason I like static languages and other such things is that after many decades of the programming community developing, since before I was born, we have not found very many best ways of "bringing enough discipline" to a codebase. It really all amounts to the same disciplines over and over. Check the types. Be sure guarantees are maintained. Document the input and output parameters. If there were dozens of very distinct and mutually-contradictory ways to impose this discipline, and there was no clear domination among those ways, then it might make sense for all of our languages to be loosey-goosey and not impose anything directly. But since we all generally find the same disciplines, we might as well pull those up to the language level and thereby enable them to be fully supported, and share the tooling among each other rather than expecting every junior dev to reinvent it from scratch... which they won't.