[cbd1984]

> The problem is, most of the dynamic proponents know next to nothing about the PL theory anyway.

This is either a "triumph" of theory over reality, or an insult of a whole group of people.

In short: A lot of people like dynamic typing, and can be productive in it. If the "theory" you cite says static typing is better, the "theory" needs to be changed to reflect reality. If, on the other hand, you're wrong about the theory and/or about dynamic typing enthusiasts knowing it, you should apologize.

[dllthomas]

> A lot of people like dynamic typing, and can be productive in it.

"A lot of people can be productive in it" does not establish that nothing else could be better. I can be productive in bash, but I think we all agree "stringly typed" is not as good as most other approaches to programming language design.

Even "a lot of people find themselves to be most productive in it" doesn't tell us much, as other factors could very well dominate (most significantly familiarity of language and/or paradigm, but I'm sure we can both think of plenty of other candidates).

[cbd1984]

> I can be productive in bash, but I think we all agree "stringly typed" is not as good as most other approaches to programming language design.

That depends on the language, and how central text is to what it does.