Oh, right—sorry, I forgot. That devil will whisper, "You know, if you write this code in Visual Basic .NET, you can make the entire codebase Option Strict Off and Option Explicit Off, make the compiler shut up and you can go home early...." Hell, they've been whispering that bit of subversion since 2001. And ye Gods! The leveled cities! burned forests! cute little kitten bodies! all over the place! It's fortunate that we C# developers have kept all those Visual Basic developers on the straight-and-narrow path of true salvation static typing.

Maybe I am a static-typing fundamentalist, but you cannot say that the "dynamic" keyword in C# should be used in anything except Javascript/COM interop situations (okay, there are probably others, but it is a specialized case).

The author argues (and whines) that VB (something else I wouldn't hang my hat on) made people much more productive than C++. It did, but they had worlds of differences between them. VB.NET and C# have near zero. C# just shouldn't have dynamic/duck typing. If you want that, THEN USE ANOTHER LANGUAGE.

At least, he concedes there are different tools for different jobs. Unit testing is an area that a dynamic language excels in. I simply hate using a loosely typed anything in any kind of project that involves more than one person. Tribal styles of coding develop too easily.

Dynamic languages have their place. Just not in my C#, thank you.