[ilaksh]

"My favorite languages feature types very prominently, therefore any software engineering approach that doesn't do so is invalid, and here are some reasons I thought of".

He posts this on HN, which happens to be built in Arc Scheme, a Lisp dialect (which is dynamically typed). I wonder if the author has written software that has better uptime and more popularity than HN? Is the author's codebase truly easier to understand?

[freedomben]

Dynamically typed is a different scenario than statically typed with type inference. There are a whole lot more factors/considerations at play, and it's not helpful to confuse the two.

And what does it matter what HN is built on? Do you think any criticisms of C should not be posted on a site that runs on top of the linux kernel because the kernel is written in C?

[ilaksh]

He did not actually say his criticism only applies to statically typed languages. He almost implied that he would consider dynamically typed languages invalid by default without the types.

It does matter that there is a lot of successful software written in languages that are dynamically typed or use type inference when some want to dismiss these approaches entirely. Because it proves that these approaches can still result in useful and reliable software and productive software engineering.

[varjag]

He is an author of several Common Lisp packages, so I think that angle is covered.