> Dynamic languages with no compile time checking of fields, assertions, etc. seem inherently very dangerous to me for anything security critical or cryptograph

> Dynamic languages with no compile time checking of fields, assertions, etc. seem inherently very dangerous to me for anything security critical or cryptographic. You don't seem to realize, but runtime checking and assertions is an equivalent thing, it's literally an empty claim. But dynamism actually allows more in terms of security, because you can track a lot of things at runtime implicitly and bail if anything doesn't satisfy some property. For example: taint checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking > Sure you can write secure and correct code in them, but what happens years later when others (including yourself after you've forgotten what you wrote!) have come and made various edits, changes, refactors, etc. That's what test coverage is for. But your claims are wrong and ignorant either way. We have empirical evidence that less code means less bugs and that more expressive dynamic languages means less code for the same functionality and therefore less bugs too.