statically typed languages with dependent types solve this problem of “static types not catching off-by-ones”, although I question the premise of these being the most common software bugs. Perhaps in a CS class these are the most prevalent?
Furthermore,
> Dynamic languages encourage more modular, more interchangeable code.
Have you ever used an ML or another typed language with an actual module system? It makes these dynamic languages look duct-taped in comparison.
> Fine. Don't force it on us. If it's the right solution, then it will be followed.
Do you actually, really believe this? Do you really believe that if that the research studies come out and say “hey stay inside” that everyone will read the studies front-to-back and go “oh, it’s in the public interest for everyone to stay inside”? Is this a thing that you think will happen in America?
It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness. --Jacob Boehme
Furthermore,
> Dynamic languages encourage more modular, more interchangeable code.
Have you ever used an ML or another typed language with an actual module system? It makes these dynamic languages look duct-taped in comparison.