[mgreenbe]

  Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically 
  typed are bicyles?? Not exactly a neutral comparison and 
  hypocracy in light of his complaints against the strong 
  vs. weak labels.

Good thing he didn't make it. Please read the article next time. Here's the relevant quote:

  [Obsessively tracking type information in dynamic 
  languages] prevents a programmer from realizing the 
  benefits of dynamic typing. It's like buying a new car, 
  but refusing to drive any faster than a bicycle. The car 
  is horrible; you can't get up the mountain trails, and it 
  requires gasoline on top of everything else. Indeed, a 
  car is a pretty lousy excuse for a bicycle! Similarly, 
  dynamically typed languages are pretty lousy excuses for 
  statically typed languages.

The point the author is making is that some programmers may have been frustrated by dynamic languages because they didn't allow their programs to fail, i.e., with runtime type errors. I disagree with the author's point---I've never heard of anyone having that problem---but you've woefully misunderstood what the author says.

[lsd5you]

I don't want to be argumentative - its only a light hearted comment - but i did of course read the article. I just interpreted something differently to yourself.

I read it again, and the analogy is still there. Car is to dynamic typing as bicycle is to ... anyway ... you can play down its significance or ambiguity, but i'd need convincing that its not there at all.

[mgreenbe]

Fair enough. I would play down the significance where you played it up. Considering the equanimitous tone of the whole article, it seems unfair---or, at least, ungenerous---to take him to task for a colorful, one-off analogy.