> dynamic languages offer cleaner syntax Solely for syntax, my assertion is that this is just because dynamic languages evolve faster. Because they are easier

> dynamic languages offer cleaner syntax Solely for syntax, my assertion is that this is just because dynamic languages evolve faster. Because they are easier to build. E.g. one person can buy the dragon book(s), use parser/lexer libraries, get an AST, and then start an interpreter than just stores objects as maps, and evals things dynamically. But very few people are going to write a new/novel type system on their weekends. So that's why, IMO, all the sexy/modern syntax shows up in dynamic languages first, and then takes ~a generation or two to reach static languages, where you need a dedicated team to put the effort into the type system + compiler + expected tool set (IDEs/etc.). (E.g. see Scala, Kotlin, Rust, etc., which have all, IMO, achieved the "syntax as nice as Ruby" level, but took large teams of people to do it).