That's a refreshingly nuanced comment in a debate where people tend to be very quick to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. You also make a very good

That's a refreshingly nuanced comment in a debate where people tend to be very quick to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. You also make a very good point regarding languages for teams vs hackers - this is overlooked very often. I'd just to like to point out that grouping together dynamically typed languages and comparing them to statically typed ones as a whole is really not useful at all due to the huge variations within each group in terms of correctness and expressiveness. When people compare dynamic vs static languages they generally compare the languages they're familiar with and often assume that they are representative of the group to a sufficiently high degree. They're not. Using Clojure for example is a very different experience from using Python and not just cosmetically. Clojure with spec is a very different experience from plain Clojure. Haskell is very different from C#. I'd encourage anyone with an interest in using the best tool for the job and increasing their effectiveness as developers to at least dabble in what I would consider to be the state of the art in practically usable, more or less mainstream languages in both camps - Haskell and Clojure (with an extensive use of spec). You are likely to realise that statically typed languages can be way more expressive and less bend-over-backwards-for-no-good-reason-to-make-the-compiler-happy than C# or Java and dynamic languages can be significantly more capable of ensuring correctness and 'moving bugs to the left' than Python and JavaScript.