> I am not interested in diverting the discussion from the topic. The topic was that static typing is superior to dynamic typing - i.e., more powerful and more flexible.

> How does it translate to a "net win"? I do not care, honestly. There are fare to many factors other than the language features.

I'm glad we established that you don't care about the net win of this, so that we can agree that we're not at all talking about the same thing.

The net win is the entire point. I don't care how something is done if it's not a net win for me and my projects. It's irrelevant to say something is better in theory if there is absolutely no proof of it actually being better.

I can love macros, but would I go ahead and assert that a language with macros is absolutely better than a language without? No, they have a cost associated with them and their misuse makes things worse. Hence, they're not objectively superior to anything else. This goes for almost any feature, until you can prove a net win.

(Edit: The same goes for my point about C++ earlier. There are more things in C++ than there are in C, but most people would argue that C++ has too many things and that many of them actually make things worse. Hence, having more things in C++ could be considered a net loss.)

> they have a cost associated with them and their misuse makes things worse

Omg. My assessment was correct, after all.

> Hence, they're not objectively superior to anything else

Of course they are.

> Omg. My assessment was correct, after all.

If your assessment was that I prefer being pragmatic and that I believe most things have a cost, then yes. I think macros can be done right (in Scheme, etc.), but even then they have a potential cost.

> Of course they are.

And this is obviously where we definitely diverge. I think macros are great, but I acknowledge that you can't make that statement without big disclaimers. You don't seem to care about being pragmatic, so for you it's more clear cut.