The three main points in the argument are wrong. I present as evidence this flower and a pack of cards. Dynamic languages DO have refactoring tools. It's jus

The three main points in the argument are wrong. I present as evidence this flower and a pack of cards. Dynamic languages DO have refactoring tools. It's just that not many people use them. That typo error WOULD have been caught with a static analyzer or with unit tests. Yes, if you supply a function with a type you haven't tested for it might not work. Solution: test for that type, and validate your inputs. The fourth argument that debugging is more expensive is not substantiated. I find dynamically typed systems easier to debug, especially when they don't have four hour compile times like some statically typed code bases do. Being able to more quickly change, and rerun code in dynamically typed systems gives them a big debugging advantage. Many dynamically typed systems even let you easily change code at run time (which I know is possible with statically typed systems too). I think more major reasons would be dependent on the types of problems people are solving. Also... vi forever!