Why does Dynamic Typing really matter?!?

[Jeremy Fincher]

claird at lairds.com (Cameron Laird) wrote in message news:<v44tnkpq16ma29 at corp.supernews.com>...
> All true, of course.  I'll dramatize this in what strikes me
> as Maoist rhetoric:  we support dynamic typing not to change
> types, but to ignore types.  Types are a false overdetermin-
> ation, as, at an earlier time and at a lower level, memory
> addresses were.  Memory and type management are just two of
> several functions best left to the computer, so that coders
> can concentrate on application-level concepts.

That's not an argument against static typing, it's an argument against
explicit typing.  An implicitly statically typed language (one that
infers types at compile time, like ML) allows you to "ignore types" as
well as providing static assurance of type safety.

Jeremy