This other "The case for dynamic, functional programming"[0] post may offer hints. So I suppose it will be more like Elixir/BEAM. > Theoretically, functional p

This other "The case for dynamic, functional programming"[0] post may offer hints. So I suppose it will be more like Elixir/BEAM. > Theoretically, functional programs should: have fewer bugs, be easier to optimize for performance, allow you to add features more quickly, achieve the same outcome with less effort, require less time to get familiarized with a new codebase, etc. With a dynamic, functional language you could enjoy all of this simplicity. In my experience use of static typing has fewer bugs and better performance than my usages of dynamic languages on all but small or short-lived projects. I suppose this will round-out Google languages: Go, Dart, and _, until they make their own scripting or an actual systems language. [0] https://www.onebigfluke.com/2022/11/the-case-for-dynamic-functional.html https://www.onebigfluke.com/2022/11/the-case-for-dynamic-fun...