There are researches backing some sort of "typed language is better for LLM". Like https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09246, Type-Constrained Code Generation with Language Models, where LLM's output is constrainted by type checkers.

Also https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03283, Enhancing Repository-Level Code Generation with Integrated Contextual Information, uses staic analyzers to produce prompts with more context info.

Yet, the argument does directly translate to the conclusion that typed language is rigorously better for LLM without external tools. However, typed language and its static analysis information do seem to help LLM.

Dynamically typed languages are far from "untyped". Though they may well require more effort to analyze from scratch without making assumptions, there is nothing inherently preventing type-constrained code generation of the kind the first paper proposes even without static typing.

A system doing type-constrained code-generation can certainly implement its own static type system by tracking a type for variables it uses and ensuring those constraints are maintained without actually emitting the type checks and annotations.

Similarly, static analyzers can be - and have been - applied to dynamically typed languages, though if these projects have been written using typical patterns of dynamic languages the types can get very complex, so this tends to work best with code-bases written for it.