>I see a lot of comments on HN the last few years that just assume the dynamic vs static debate was settled at some time. It never ended. Static typing merely b

>I see a lot of comments on HN the last few years that just assume the dynamic vs static debate was settled at some time. It never ended. Static typing merely became trendy because dynamic typing was the trend for many years. Not always. If you examine history not everything is a cycle, depending on what you look at human efficiency improves as well. Society goes through natural selection. The cultures, methods and behaviors that help us survive live on while methodologies that aren't as good tend to get eliminated. The cycles in the process occur in areas not under selection pressure. It's called genetic drift and mutations in this area can occur willy nilly in random steps or even cycles if it doesn't have an effect on survival. The pressure in this case is survival of a business. There's not enough cultural data on dynamics types vs. static types, but I feel in general the dynamic type thing was a mutation. Dynamic types were natures trial at a baby born with one kidney instead of two because one kidney is more energy efficient to maintain. Now it's being naturally selected out. We'll never know for sure unless you live long enough to see what happens to programming in the far future. For something to be truly called cyclical it must be adopted by huge amount of businesses and eliminated and recreated multiple times.