

Dynamic languages are static languages - artagnon
http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-languages-are-static-languages/

======
tree_of_item
I really do not understand why I keep seeing static typing advocates recite
this "dynamic languages only have one type!" line like it's some kind of
profound insight.

Yes, obviously you can view a dynamic language as having only a "top" type.
That's largely the point.

As for the post, I'm assuming it was written as some kind of tongue-in-cheek
reverse troll, as I'd really like to believe Robert Harper doesn't drip
condescension like that without being fully aware of it.

~~~
smosher
IIRC there are several posts on that blog just obsessing over how awesome
static typing is. On the other hand there are probably more people who are
ignorant about the value of static typing than that of dynamic typing.

Every time this is brought up I always imagine writing a complete library to
support a super-type for some static language that has tagged unions and
operator overloading such that the user will rarely if ever need to inspect
the type tag. And the more I think about this the more I realize you'd get
gradual typing on primitives for free.

