> Assumption #1: 100k+ loc codebase in X == 10k+ loc in Y (somehow... magic)
Have you ever worked with any significantly complex (as in "does a lot of stuff") in Ruby, Python or Smalltalk? Do you sincerely think you could express that same level of functionality with C, C++, C# or Java?
> Assumption #3: Static type implies upcast/downcast objects (despite the presence of generics...) == simplifies code == simplifies tests.
Generics are nice until you have to implement something that accepts them. I gave up once.
> Fact: BTW! we all are using tried-and-tested libraries to cut down code to be written
And language features that do just that (see Assumption #1)
> ... static code analysis) does actually find bugs
Actually, they are one step above syntax errors.
> Except that happens as well in dynamic language
No. Not really. Of course, I may pass a list to something that expects a file but, provided I embraced the idea of duck typing, that would probably work just fine. And yield correct results.
And avoid implementing a similar function that receives a string instead of a file.
> AND on top of that you gotta work a little bit extra since you ain't got no compiler
Most errors a compiler catches are traditionally caught in tests with dynamic languages. But having compilers doesn't allow one to skip writing proper tests with statically typed languages. In fact, considering you'll have to deal with more situations, you'll have to write more tests to go with your less concise code.
> I think this has become your typical nerd holy war between static vs dynamic with no end.
I think statically typed languages have their place. I have written tons of C and Java (and a bit of C#). I just admit my ST code was not significantly better than my DT code and was considerably more complicated, with more functions, classes, interfaces, configurations, indirections, and much more verbose. The 10x loc difference is very real. In the end they were all, ST and DT, correct.
> Here's my biggest problem with Ruby or Python community: your libraries tend to have short-lived (i.e.: orphaned).
I'm nos as familiar with Ruby (the language mentioned in the article) but I can tell you Rails (the framework mentioned) is very solid and very well maintained. Compatibility can be broken from time to time, mostly for good reasons. And you don't need to rush to update your code - you can be perfectly happy using older libraries. I can tell you, however, Python libraries are remarkably stable. The impending move to Python 3 is the only significant example of code breakage, but, again, it's for great reasons.
> they're quite stable and rock solid since 2004-2005 (Apache Commons, Maven, Ant, FindBugs, Eclipse, EclEmma, Spring Framework family, JUnit, Hibernate).
A couple of them gained significant functionality in the past couple years. If you want to use the new functionality, you'll have to refactor your code, often extensively.
> I can focus on writing code that matters,
Ditto here. I just write less code (in less time) for the same amount of "matters"
> instead of refactoring my code once every 4 months because things changed and I have to keep up.
With the extra time you get by writing less code in less time, you certainly have the time to refactor. With good tests, you have the certainty the refactoring was successful. Besides, nothing is compelling you to switch to incompatible versions every 4 months (I don't even think that's possible unless you are doing so deliberately). What is the problem here?