I think this argument is at the wrong level. Dynamic langs can be static (but without the guarantee that it always will be), static languages can be dynamic bu

I think this argument is at the wrong level. Dynamic langs can be static (but without the guarantee that it always will be), static languages can be dynamic but with difficulties. If guarantees are the issue, standards, language features/structure and constraints are the crux. Take a dynamic language, and explicitly label what is dynamic, and what is static, and you can restore static guarantees, while still having dynamic features if need be. Hybrid langs, with better reflectivity will win - you can have "both". That said, software development models that don't trust their devs are always going to choose locked down languages, and claim this is the only "viable" way - much like those companies that claiming they cannot seem to hire employees, but don't mention "at the price we want".