It's interesting to note that this blog post was written in 2003, and that a lot of the arguments we've seen in this thread, both for and against dynamically typed languages, are exactly the same arguments people might have used back then. One question to ask is whether there's anything we know today about this question that we didn't already know 20 years ago.
My suggested answers:
1. We now know, 20 years later, that dynamic-typing languages have not replaced static-typing languages. All of the languages from that '03 blog post are still heavily used. If we look at more recently introduced languages, some are statically typed and some are dynamically typed. Evidently programmers still see value in both of those ideas, and neither looks like it's replacing the other.
2. We now know that it's possible to add type deduction to statically typed languages and type annotation to dynamically typed languages, even older languages like C++ and Java and Python.
My suggested answers: 1. We now know, 20 years later, that dynamic-typing languages have not replaced static-typing languages. All of the languages from that '03 blog post are still heavily used. If we look at more recently introduced languages, some are statically typed and some are dynamically typed. Evidently programmers still see value in both of those ideas, and neither looks like it's replacing the other. 2. We now know that it's possible to add type deduction to statically typed languages and type annotation to dynamically typed languages, even older languages like C++ and Java and Python.