More on the continuous tax
Cedric post on the continuous tax triggered what it seems as another debate between dynamically types language versus statically typed language. This funny thing that even if Java and Ruby are not always mentioned, it seems as this debate is more about who prefers to code in Java or who prefer to code in Ruby.
Eric Burke took my comment (calling it bullshit) on Cedric post to talk a bit on how he did pay this so-called tax once or twice.
While I do not really appreciate it when someone compare what I say with shit, the debate has a bit too much flames for me to add oil to it.
Today dynamic language naysayer are no better that yesterday Java naysayers, they hold onto the same argument over and over without clearly substantiating them (I'm sorry when you loose 5 minutes, because a method does not really return the type you are expecting while acknowledging that you still have some miles to put behind you using the language, does not count as paying a continuous tax).
I use both Java and Ruby on a daily basis. While sometimes I may miss the righteousness of a statically typed language, I cannot say that I pay a higher tax when I use Ruby. Nor I can say that I pay a lower tax when programming in Java and having to write useless catch statements, having to write a freaking Comparator to sort object based on multiple attributes, having to check for nulls all the time (yes I know about the Null object idiom) or waiting for my application server to restart.
Both type of language have distinct advantages and inconvenients. I try to keep an open mind about it and use the best language/platform for the task at hand.