> Then there is the new concepts you need to learn. With dynamic typing, you can write "add(a, b) { return a + b; }". But how do you do that with Static typing?

> Then there is the new concepts you need to learn. With dynamic typing, you can write "add(a, b) { return a + b; }". But how do you do that with Static typing? Well, now you need to talk about generics. But what if you want to catch instances where things are strictly "addable?" now you are looking at constrained generics... You lost me here. All of those "what if's" seem to apply equally to dynamically typed languages. If I want "a + b" to work with two Python classes that I just wrote, I'm probably going to have to implement __add__ methods on both classes, and possibly with non-trivial implementations. It's not like dynamic typing makes everything magically addable, with no burden on the developer. Wouldn't you agree? Not to mention that languages such as Haskell and OCaml have REPLs too. They are not at robust as, say, Common Lisp's -- but REPL-driven development is hardly a stranger in the statically typed camp. I agree that both camps have their appeal, though!