[kumarvvr]

Where dynamic typing helps a lot is for creating frameworks, like Django, RoR, etc.

Because the framework is working on a level above the application, it can easily deal with objects without worrying about what is inside them.

However, people got caught up in this no-type nonsense and took it to all corners of every app development.

When you are creating, say web apps, you may not create types in dynamic languages like python, but you sure as hell will use known variables in those types.

There are a few edge cases, where dynamic types allow you to build logic on user-defined sets of data, but those cases are few and far between. Even those can be solved using generic data containers or custom data protocols such as XML.

[valenterry]

> Because the framework is working on a level above the application, it can easily deal with objects without worrying about what is inside them.

Even for that there is no need for dynamic typing anymore. This problem has been solves with type parameters (aka generics) and type-classes.

[Daishiman]

Not true.

In Python and Ruby it's an extremely common pattern to return a dictionary with a half-dozen entries at most that will be consumed at a single location.

Defining an entire class for this sort of extremely common use case is for the most part a waste of time.

These languages allow for the formalization of those types by creating classes out of them, but looking at what 50% of my functions do in web dev code, they're returning tuples, small dictionaries, or standard library objects.

[valenterry]

What makes you think that statically typed languages don't have (type-safe) tuples or dictionaries?

Maybe you can give a minimal code example of what you mean and I'll show you how I would solve that in a statically typed way. :)

[Daishiman]

Which mainstream language supports anonymous structural types? C# is the only one that comes to mind and it's not a standard pattern AFAIK.

[valenterry]

Wait a moment! Since when are we talking about only mainstream languages? And how is that even defined?

That's not fair play

[Daishiman]

Language features are a secondary consideration when compared to ecosystem and library availability as far as getting actual stuff done.

I never claimed those languages don't exist, but a language is a full package, and right now I'm not seeing even ascending languages as supporting trivial structural return types as an idiom. Granted, this is mostly a personal pet peeve given my observations and usage of code.