Ugh, `dynamic` doesn't provide the benefits of a dynamically typed language by long, long way, and yes I've used it extensively. But thanks for the downvote all the same.
In case you plan on skimming that and missing the details the tl;dr is that Rob, pushes `dynamic` as far as he can and it still comes up far short of the extensibility and expressiveness of Ruby constructs.
Upvoted. Spot on. It's nowhere near as dynamic as a basic dynamic language. So much so that I just don't bother with dynamic in C# (I also don't bother with nullable types and a load of other features as well but that's another story).
However, I don't find that a problem. I tend to prefer the correctness of statically typed languages these days.
