
What is the appeal of dynamically-typed languages? - kornish
https://gist.github.com/non/ec48b0a7343db8291b92
======
smt88
This isn't a great write-up for reasons explained here:
[https://gist.github.com/non/ec48b0a7343db8291b92#gistcomment...](https://gist.github.com/non/ec48b0a7343db8291b92#gistcomment-1450054)

It also assumes all static typing is nominal typing, when structural static
types also exist and don't lead to Java-like class overload.

------
_bxg1
The author seems to conflate static typing with class-based typing for much of
this. Languages like Haskell and TypeScript (and I thought Scala?) are
statically typed, but have a concept of structural types that don't require
you to use classes at all. In fact this static duck-typing is, I'm pretty
sure, one of Haskell's most-advertised features.

