Freedom languages are great, but does that always imply a dynamic
language?

Exactly. Dynamicism is a set of techniques for enabling certain styles
of programming that many find desirable, if not essential. I think the
article is making a case that its not necessarily the specific
techniques that we find so useful but the mindset they enable.

What does that mean: It means I can look at programming from both sides - the one that does it and the one that oversees software projects. Now, I’ve been a big supporter of Java for many years. Java was really the next best thing after NeXT collapsed (and with that my beloved Objective-c). Java was great until about Java 1.2 - that’s when the language became so bloated and all of a sudden tried to be everything to everyone. When Sun decided to roll out a new marketing concept called J2EE, I was first impressed and then suddenly depressed after realizing that J2EE was just another way of making a solution more complex than it had to be - sort of reminded me a lot when people started to think that programming patterns where the future (thanks GoF for that one) - not that there is anything wrong with patterns, it’s just that I don’t neccessarily need them. But anyway, back to this: Java is clearly bloated today and absolutely unusable for large systems - it takes forever to do anything in Java - even the smallest of small problems (the JVM is slow, the memory foot print is crazy and to write a simple look you have to create an iterator [ ok that’s not so different from other languages]). While I have to use Java in my work - I recently started to date a new language called Ruby and I think I’m in Love.. or rather it’s that same feeling that I had when I started to do software development so many years ago.. (in the 80’s). The point being here: statically typed or dynamically typed never really mattered to me - what does matter is flexibility, ease of development and a quick development environment. Ruby has all that, Java had all that.