Me too, but I learned in Turbo Pascal and early Java which had some real limitations to their type systems. Imagine - strings of different lengths being incomp

Me too, but I learned in Turbo Pascal and early Java which had some real limitations to their type systems. Imagine - strings of different lengths being incompatible types, arrays of different lengths being incompatible types, no generics, so no standard collections, no serialization, tons of manual typecasting. Having to write separate methods for every possible set of parameters. Out of nostalgia, getting so frustrated with dynamic-typed code, I once tried to go back to some of that old code and make it use JSON instead of proprietary formats. That was a nightmare. In the dynamic languages it would be utterly trivial. Just call json_encode($whatever), or $whatever = json_decode($some_string). Modern languages with modern type systems, inference, generics, etc. that make things like that possible and relatively clean completely change the picture. Another thing that bugs me about dynamic languages is of course you have to manually check everything all the time because the compiler can't. We used to complain about the bloat of having to write all those type names and casts, but dynamic code, if it has good checks, can actually be more bloated in addition to being less expressive.