Saying that it doesn't exist in 2013 is either disingenuous or ignorant. You can make any number of arguments as to its relevance, or whether it has achieved certain goals and milestones, but its existence is not in question.
It is very actively developed. Some (small group of) people use it every day. Some (very, very small group of) people even use it in small portions of their business.
I'll concede that. I meant it more in the way people say "Rust doesn't exist." Yes there is software that actively runs, but by no means are either generally considered ready for "production".
My main issue though is that static languages are improving to the point where I start to wonder about the relevance of any dynamic language.
My main issue though is that static languages are improving to the point where I start to wonder about the relevance of any dynamic language.
IMO static typing can be cumbersome for exploratory programming. That said, I really like the added benefits it can impart. I think an optionally typed language may be the best of both worlds, but my experience with them is minimal.
I like type inferencing, like in Haskell. You gain the benefits of static typing, but you do not have to explicitly write the types all over the place. I find that the exploratory phase goes more quickly with the compiler there to provide a sanity check.
It is very actively developed. Some (small group of) people use it every day. Some (very, very small group of) people even use it in small portions of their business.