Hacker News Reader

static typing does NOT mean C# and java - there are far better statically typed languages out there.

Agreed. But they do embody the strict static typing philosophy which I do acknowledge is clearly a straw man of the authors point of view.

C# has supported dynamic typing since version 4.0.

At this point it doesn't make much sense to say that C# is strictly anything. It's perhaps the most obsessively multi-paradigm language out there.

Ugh, `dynamic` doesn't provide the benefits of a dynamically typed language by long, long way, and yes I've used it extensively. But thanks for the downvote all the same.

http://wekeroad.com/2010/08/09/csharps-new-clothes/

In case you plan on skimming that and missing the details the tl;dr is that Rob, pushes `dynamic` as far as he can and it still comes up far short of the extensibility and expressiveness of Ruby constructs.

Upvoted. Spot on. It's nowhere near as dynamic as a basic dynamic language. So much so that I just don't bother with dynamic in C# (I also don't bother with nullable types and a load of other features as well but that's another story).

However, I don't find that a problem. I tend to prefer the correctness of statically typed languages these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com