Do you disagree with those who say dynamic languages are bad for big projects, which the author appears to concede by arguing big projects are bad in the first place?
If we're applying the argument to Perl, then sure.. I get it. With Perl, it's more a question of syntax. By supporting so many ways to accomplish the same thing, it can be very unwieldy when you have many programmers all exercising all of those options.
It's not a question of dynamic in that case. It's a question of a (in my opinion) fundamental shortcoming in the language.
However, languages like Python or Ruby both seem pretty well suited for large scale development. We've seen large scale projects written in both, and it works just fine.
So no, I don't agree with the fundamental premise that dynamic languages are bad for 'big' projects. If by 'big' we mean memory/processor intensive... well lets have THAT debate instead.
Having never tried it, I can't really say. I'm willing to at least seriously consider that the right dynamic language might be an excellent choice for certain big projects.
For instance, I've been doing a good bit of playing around with Perl 6 this year. I think by this time next year Rakudo will be stable enough to make it an excellent choice for developing large projects where execution speed is not of the essence. But that's just a hypothesis, I certainly haven't done enough Perl 6 programming to feel confident in that yet.
