Metaprogramming: I think he/she is associating schema-less DBs with dynamically typed languages and metaprogramming, and static typing with languages such as C

Metaprogramming: I think he/she is associating schema-less DBs with dynamically typed languages and metaprogramming, and static typing with languages such as C that tend to lack sophisticated metaprogramming facilities. I'm not sure it's a valid comparison, though: OCaml has a statically typed Lisp-style macro engine (camlp4), for example. (In all honesty, though, I've never used it. Lazy evaluation, the packaging system, and other language features cover many of the same use cases.) I think it's a case of assuming the C family's type system is the cutting edge of static typing, when it's actually pretty archaic. The point about K/V databases having a rigid schema of (key_type -> untyped_value) is a good one, by the way. Of course, association tables (AKA "dictionaries") are pretty versatile as a basic collection type - looking at Lua, Python, Awk, or Javascript. They're not ideal for all cases, but they're a good start for most.