(I might be very wrong as I don't have time to check every statement):
Actually the theory of static typing appeared _after_ the theory of dynamic typing.
So the history seems to be:
1. dynamic types
2. static types
Thus you can say some people didn' get the memo that we tried static typing and it not a panacea. It fits very well some cases and it does not fit some other cases.
Dynamic typing is here to stay, so is static typing.
And when referring to Ruby here is how to think about it:
Ruby is strongly typed, but it does not use static type checking thus it is defined as dynamically typed.
Actually the theory of static typing appeared _after_ the theory of dynamic typing.
So the history seems to be:
1. dynamic types
2. static types
Thus you can say some people didn' get the memo that we tried static typing and it not a panacea. It fits very well some cases and it does not fit some other cases.
Dynamic typing is here to stay, so is static typing.
And when referring to Ruby here is how to think about it:
Ruby is strongly typed, but it does not use static type checking thus it is defined as dynamically typed.