> This doesn't stop everyone from making grand, confident claims about static vs. dynamic typing. Such studies as there are don't support these claims, but the

> This doesn't stop everyone from making grand, confident claims about static vs. dynamic typing. Such studies as there are don't support these claims, but the studies are weak in so many ways that it's easy to dismiss the ones you don't like and stick to your previous opinion, so that's what we all do. > For these reasons, the debate is pure tribalism and cargo cult. We should stop pretending that our views have any objective support and just talk about them in terms of taste. That's unsatisfying to the technical mind, though, so none of us will! Excellent points[1] and I think I'm mostly justified in saying that I personally have begun prefacing any discussion of these things by a disclaimer to the effect of "well, the evidence is very sparse and it's a woefully understudied area...". I think of it as a kind of 'professional maturity' these days. Or maybe it's just 'old man syndrome' :). Of course it's not like actually doing these types of studies is easy or cheap, so... here we are, I guess :) [1] Even though I disagree with your position on type checking. Static FOREVER, baby! :p