I wonder if dynamically-typed languages are stable entrants in the IT ecosystem? Charles Nutter (headius at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3372816 http://

I wonder if dynamically-typed languages are stable entrants in the IT ecosystem? Charles Nutter (headius at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3372816 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3372816) recently wrote about _JRuby_: "I find it a bit of a dodge when a dynamic language has to go to static types for performance. That's not to say I haven't wanted to have that dodge available to JRuby users, but being unable (or unwilling) to unilaterally add optional static types to Ruby, we've been forced to find more creative options." And Groovy is introducing static compilation (http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GroovyJSR/GEP+10+-+Static+compilation http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GroovyJSR/GEP+10+-+Static+c...), having this year added special treatment for primitive types, perhaps encouraged by the Grails team to make Groovy faster. Is there an overall tendency that once a software product/language has been successfully marketed, the next step is to make what's there faster, even if that means refocusing on static compilation instead of dynamic?