> His argument that static typing introduces coupling and reduces modularity is convincing. It's absolutely bogus. In Java, C#, C and C++, I can pull in depend

> His argument that static typing introduces coupling and reduces modularity is convincing. It's absolutely bogus. In Java, C#, C and C++, I can pull in dependencies via scanning a plugin directory that searches for JAR resp. DLL files. The only coupling is the interface, which in a properly factored system will be a single module containing only the related set of interfaces. Claiming this exposes the author of never having worked on any actual medium or large system in any commonly used static language. (Maybe the more academic ecosystems like Haskell or ML require implicitly pulling in dependencies via textual imports, but this is absolutely not the only way to do it.)