Are dynamic languages going to replace static languages? (2003)
I never understand these &quot;dynamic vs. static&quot; threads.  All of the comments saying that types are somehow undesirable.  Or trying to appear wise and above it all with some variant of the middle-ground fallacy.<p>The advantages of a dynamic type system are two-fold:<p>1. Dynamic typing and a meta-object protocol allow for certain design patterns.  Arguably makes it a bit easier to write DSL&#x27;s.<p>2. You don&#x27;t have to spend 500 milliseconds typing the word `string` or `int`.<p>However, in reality:<p>1. Virtually no one in these threads are actually writing DSL&#x27;s, or applying any of those design patterns.  They&#x27;re writing line-of-business CRUD apps, and simply don&#x27;t feel like reading or typing `string` or `int`.<p>2. Most static languages are getting more sophisticated with type inference, such that you don&#x27;t have to type `string` or `int` nearly as often (although we can debate whether this actually makes your code more readable or less).<p>So in sum, most people aren&#x27;t even getting much if any purported advantage, and in exchange they are giving up a slew of compile-time checks that must instead be manually implemented in (unreliable) tests.<p>It&#x27;s just madness.  You don&#x27;t want to type `string` or `int`.  It really is as simple as that.