A lot of discussion around that topic seems to happen without mentioning in which context the concrete development happens. The article doesn't mention which language the author works in.
In particular the "don't want to restructure the codebase because the tests would fail, so I don't write tests anymore" is probably something that you can easily get away with the more expressive your type system is. You can make lots of heavy structural changes and refactorings and if it compiles, you're mostly fine. If you try that in a Rails project, you can basically spend five times the amount of time to just test and ensure that you catch all the subtle cases where the dynamic typing in the new code structure leads to new errors.
In particular the "don't want to restructure the codebase because the tests would fail, so I don't write tests anymore" is probably something that you can easily get away with the more expressive your type system is. You can make lots of heavy structural changes and refactorings and if it compiles, you're mostly fine. If you try that in a Rails project, you can basically spend five times the amount of time to just test and ensure that you catch all the subtle cases where the dynamic typing in the new code structure leads to new errors.