For me, when working in dynamic languages (that lack static checking of types, null, etc) I'm a bit too nervous to "really fly."
When the computer helps me find errors, misspellings, and bugs—given that I understand the type system well enough to not get very confused—that's when I "fly."
Well, I'll also say that I really fly in Common Lisp, and I think that language has a nice balance: the compilers do check types and nullability, to some extent at least... and the interactivity, "touching the objects"-ness, and general pleasure of coding weighs up for the lack of a really rigorous Haskell-like type system.
And I'm not really a strong advocate of any particular language. I'm still holding out for a really excellent environment with some kind of best of all worlds approach. Maybe in 30 years...
Same here (2nd para). IMHO, it all sucks pretty badly, though there are tiny patches of light here and there.
What I get somewhat tired of is advocates who have seen one of these tiny patches and then proclaims having seen THE LIGHT and declaring all the rest obvious darkness (and you're obviously not one of them).
I want to be able to adapt my language to my domain without having to write a DSL or solve boring multi-language integration problems, I want to reuse components without being overwhelmed by and stuck in glue code, I want to be able to define any type of architectural connector that's appropriate for my problem and have it be on par with any built-in stuff. I want static checking of any properties I care to check, and I want to that to not get in my way by obscuring the problem I am trying to solve. And I want it all live and with amazing performance that is under my control :)
When the computer helps me find errors, misspellings, and bugs—given that I understand the type system well enough to not get very confused—that's when I "fly."