Either there's something missing between steps 1 and 2, or dynamic languages allow you to become a multi-billion dollar company just by writing two pages of code. I mean they are concise, but not that concise.
But it sounds like no amount of evidence will convince you. You have to invent weird terms like "sane refactoring" and "throwaway code" that do all the heavy lifting in your religion.
If you are presented with evidence that a lot of successful companies are doing refactoring with dynamic languages, you will say "it's not sane refactoring" (no true Scotsman) or say those companies are outliers (ignoring the fact they are overwhelming majority).
But all of that doesn't matter. Those companies are still more successful.
1. Write a bit of code (two pages max).
2. Become a unicorn.
3. Rewrite everything.
Either there's something missing between steps 1 and 2, or dynamic languages allow you to become a multi-billion dollar company just by writing two pages of code. I mean they are concise, but not that concise.
But it sounds like no amount of evidence will convince you. You have to invent weird terms like "sane refactoring" and "throwaway code" that do all the heavy lifting in your religion.
If you are presented with evidence that a lot of successful companies are doing refactoring with dynamic languages, you will say "it's not sane refactoring" (no true Scotsman) or say those companies are outliers (ignoring the fact they are overwhelming majority).
But all of that doesn't matter. Those companies are still more successful.