> A lot of people like dynamic typing, and can be productive in it.
"A lot of people can be productive in it" does not establish that nothing else could be better. I can be productive in bash, but I think we all agree "stringly typed" is not as good as most other approaches to programming language design.
Even "a lot of people find themselves to be most productive in it" doesn't tell us much, as other factors could very well dominate (most significantly familiarity of language and/or paradigm, but I'm sure we can both think of plenty of other candidates).
That honestly surprises me. When text is central, that sounds like when you most need to be able to organize your data without worrying about whether a delimiter might occur in some content...
Note that I'm not saying that a stringly typed language mightn't, in some cases, be the best choice. Just that it will be the best choice for reasons other than being stringly typed, and a language that allowed better organization of your data while offering similar affordances would be an improvement.
"A lot of people can be productive in it" does not establish that nothing else could be better. I can be productive in bash, but I think we all agree "stringly typed" is not as good as most other approaches to programming language design.
Even "a lot of people find themselves to be most productive in it" doesn't tell us much, as other factors could very well dominate (most significantly familiarity of language and/or paradigm, but I'm sure we can both think of plenty of other candidates).