>>25
how did classes not affect the way you think about programming? The idea that your program only needs n mutable objects where n is the template of IFactories of IFactories, is, I think, really mind-shifting and important.
To be honest, I struggle to think of a dynamically typed language which is as idiomatically functional as C++ or Java. Dylan perhaps. I think the reason for this is that object oriented programming as a style, require vigilance and strength. It always benefits your program in the end to reduce inessential simplicity, but we are all human and we all er. C++ and Java don't let you.
Maybe that's a bad thing or a good thing. I'm not sayan. My point is that the essential reason these languages don't take off is not the static typing per se, but that object oriented programming is hard.