[jasonwatkinspdx]

While the basic perspective of this post is interesting, I find the authors rhetoric entirely off-putting.

Example:

"There are ill-defined languages, and there are well-defined languages. Well-defined languages are statically typed, and languages with rich static type systems subsume dynamic languages as a corner case of narrow, but significant, interest."

I would like to see justification for the claim that there does not exist a single well defined language with runtime type enforcement.

This tone runs through the entire article, which is mostly begging the question rather than supporting the premise. I'd love to see the author's point illustrated by contrasting Haskell/ML and Python/Scheme/Ruby code listings or something similar.

Instead the article merely restates its premise in an attempt to make an impression, rather than to inform. Disappointing.