I am sure everybody is waiting for my reaction, as I am the python evangelist around these parts. I don't have the time to write up a detailed response, but I have to say that I agree with most of what the author has written. But a few quick details.
For the code example he gives... here is the python code
sum([1,3,5,7])
For the claim of the DL evangalists that "Dynamic Typing, Interpretation and Reduced Code Volume Increase Development Speed", I wouldn't have said that. I would have said, "Claim: Dynamic Typing, Interpretation and Reduced Code Volume Increase
Development Prototyping Speed" and a greater amount of that prototyping code is kept in the final product than other languages.
Claim: Support From Major Companies Legitimizes DLs -- I do not agree with the DL evangelists on this at all.
Claim: As the Problems Change, People Use New Languages -- I would disagree, but would probably claim that "As the Problems Change, People Use New (Code) Libraries".
Claim: Syntax Can Be Natural -- As with Hacknot, I agree that it is personal preference, and for me, python matches the way I think more than other languages.
Claim: No Harm, No Foul -- I think Hacknot's response is equally idiotic. I would say, "Use the Proper Tool, Properly."
I will try to elaborate at some point in the future, but since I like DLs, I will put it in an over generalized sound bite for you.
For me, most of the coding I do today is glue code. I spend more time gluing other people's code (mostly libraries - in python, modules) together and sticking in my data. All languages have great libraries for most of this. However, the part I have to write, the glue part, is much easier to do in a DL, especially one I know well, than in a non-DL, even one I know well.
Recent Posts
Sorry for not explaining that. But I am glad to see that this info was useful. 
