[jghn]

> The static vs dynamic language debate is decisively over and static has won

I wouldn't be so fast. It wasn't that long ago that the dynamic zealots were declaring victory. And before that the static zealots. And before that the dynamic zealots. Going back decades.

[slashdev]

I was there, I was one of the dynamic zealots.

But at least I can't imagine how this trend reverses course now.

[jghn]

> I can't imagine how this trend reverses course now.

That's exactly what those/you dynamic zealots were telling people like me 15 years ago :-)

But yes, I largely agree with you. My $0.02 is that the larger pendulum over the decades is a trend towards static but being less and less visible to the end user, increasing the static typing while reducing the boilerplate and overhead on the part of the developer. Think things like type inference and the sort. Even as a static typing fan I don't miss the days when literally every variable needed an explicit type annotation.

[WillPostForFood]

Could you have imagined the trend reversing when you were a dynamic zealot? Maybe the lesson is that it really isn't that important. As the pendulum swings back and forth between trends, software doesn't change that much. It is just a bunch of small trade-offs.

[BurningFrog]

That kind of back-and-forth dynamic ideally ends up with something combining the best parts of both approaches.

Is anything like that happening?

[jghn]

I agree and I believe that's what has been happening. In another post I mentioned an increase of type inference & related technologies. For instance, one annotates the type signatures for inputs & outputs of a function as well as any tricky constructs for readability, but doesn't bother with "int x = 5".

Reduces manual boilerplate and visual noise while retaining static typing semantics.