[azakai]

> This is my bet: the age of dynamic languages is over.

I doubt it.

Yes, all the points the author makes are valid benefits of static typing. But the benefits of dynamic languages still exist. There are reasons people like both types of languages.

However, I think a more relevant point was made in the article: that statically-typed languages are looking more and more dynamic. And we can add to that that we see signs of dynamic languages adding more 'static' features, like optional types. Those are signs of convergence, of both major classes of languages learning from each other and improving.

But I still don't think we'll end up in the middle with "static, but feels totally dynamic". We'll still have both types of languages around.

[elbenshira]

Yes, I may have failed in getting it across, but a big point is this: I don't think dynamic languages will suddenly die out. Instead, strongly-typed languages will become more convincing. We are seeing better tools, and they are becoming more ergonomic.

Elm's latest blog post said it really well:

> Compilers should be assistants, not adversaries. A compiler should not just detect bugs, it should then help you understand why there is a bug.

http://elm-lang.org/blog/compilers-as-assistants

[lispm]

Please call it 'dynamically-typed' languages. You don't say 'strong language'. You say 'strongly-typed language'.