Tests are a good thing, but not all devs are even aware of the loss of safety net and so there's no guarantee that using a dynamic language results in more tests.

Using tests and static-types together would mean that there's whole categories of bugs that get eliminated while also getting more coverage for less lines of test-code.

A dynamic language (Lisp, Perl, Python, Ruby) is designed to optimize programmer efficiency, so you can implement functionality with less code. A static language (C, C++, etc) is designed to optimize hardware efficiency, so that the code you write executes as quickly as possible. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20563433/difference-between-static-and-dynamic-programming-languages#:~:text=A%20dynamic%20language%20(Lisp%2C%20Perl,executes%20as%20quickly%20as%20possible.

Here's another article, with a different point-of-view on this subject.

A more detailed expansion on which approach to pick (and the reasons thereof) can be found here.

Some other problems can be found in the quoted works section, for this paper/web page. For example, have a look here.

So, from the whole thing I take it that the problem has actually two parts: i.) a pre-processing part in which all paths have been explored (via memoization), and, ii). discover the optimal path to take, given the memoization table.

This approach is a (sort of) memoization approach.