Dynamic languages reduce the formal overhead required to develop new ideas. I can't imagine that an "eliminate boilerplate via convention at the cost of explic

Dynamic languages reduce the formal overhead required to develop new ideas. I can't imagine that an "eliminate boilerplate via convention at the cost of explicitness" mentality would have evolved independently in a world where assurances are earned by proving extra properties to the compiler. However mordern compiled languages now formalise the shortcuts afforded by dynamic languages, e.g. type inference, generics, implicit conversions, typesafe macros, type classes, etc. Similarily conventions popularised by rails-esqe frameworks are being formalised using the tools listed above. I fall into the scala camp, but have used rails at a previous job. My guess is I need 1.5x scala lines vs Ruby which I believe is a justified cost. Opinions of course vary.