I dislike the phrase 'dynamic language' and especially dislike the phrase 'static language'. We should say 'dynamically typed' or 'statically typed', because 'static' languages are the site of major dynamism.
I think 'dynamic language' is appropriate here, since it's not only talking about types; it's largely talking about macros, pre-processors, reflection, etc. too.
Also, the main argument is that separating features into those used at compile-time (AKA static) and run-time (AKA dynamic) is necessarily creating separate languages (i.e. a "static language", which may involve types, macros, preprocessors, etc.; and a "dynamic language", which may involve memory allocation, branching, I/O, etc.)
Also, the main argument is that separating features into those used at compile-time (AKA static) and run-time (AKA dynamic) is necessarily creating separate languages (i.e. a "static language", which may involve types, macros, preprocessors, etc.; and a "dynamic language", which may involve memory allocation, branching, I/O, etc.)