[klodolph]

Hm, I think your statements is too broad: "...the stuff a static language demands of us is really a limitation of said languages." You could apply it to some languages, like Java or C#, but the Haskell and ML folks have an entirely different view of static typing. As Haskell has proven, a good static typing system can make it easier to write short, clear code, correct code. And dynamic types are really just a kind of static types -- reduce a static type system until it has only one type, voila, a dynamic type system. I jest.

I tend to think about it the other way around, as "These are things I can do in a static type system but not in a dynamic one," but never let it be said that arguing about type systems on the internet was a good use of my time.