[detaro]

Please don't attack arguments the parent comment didn't make.

[jsjohnst]

Or said another way (from the HN guidelines):

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[onlydeadheroes]

Of course, because security issues and language pitfalls have no bearing on cryptographic implementations.

[detaro]

"Dynamic languages have issues" does not say "all other languages are good".

[onlydeadheroes]

He is saying dynamic languages crash and burn in this context. Specifying "dynamic" does strongly suggest non-dynamic languages do not crash and burn in this context.