This whole article is a reflection of a belief that I really don't like but is all too common these days. It's the idea that nothing is better than anything else, everything is a trade-off and strong positive are inherently wrong.
I feel you've missed the point of the article.
The author isn't making a judgement on whether static type systems are better than dynamic type systems, instead he's suggesting we increase the quality of the debate by discarding poor arguments.
I feel you've missed the point of the article.
The author isn't making a judgement on whether static type systems are better than dynamic type systems, instead he's suggesting we increase the quality of the debate by discarding poor arguments.