While I disproportionally use Ruby and JavaScript on a daily basis, this statement is referring to a specific type of (common) error, which is largely alleviated by the use of static typing, and therefore not exactly untrue.

I didn't take it as a disparaging of dynamic typing.

My guess is that rather than give an exhaustive list, the author wanted to give an example of a familiar language _without_ static typing. As Haxe is more similar to ECMAScript than Python, Ruby, Lua etc. - it's the most appropriate comparison.

As a person who likes (the good parts of) JavaScript, I read it as trying to appeal to me with promises of less debug time.

Haxe is not new. I was using it years ago.

It started out as an actionscript (which is javascript) compiler for flash that was simply enerated far faster swf files than the macromedia toolchain.

From this grew an actionscript like language called haxe that strives to solve what were seen as the wrongs of the javascript language. And in my opinion it succeeds.

Its cool to see that the cross platform angle grows and i hope haxe reaches the mainstream awareness it deserves.

You should try it :)

The biggest problem for Haxe is with appropriate JavaScript libraries that abstract the shrinking number of differences between browsers, plus the advent of NodeJS working on pretty much every possible operating system, JavaScript is becoming what Haxe wants to be.

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Perhaps this isn't random bashing then, but a response to a perceived threat.

Ah, but there is a reason people also write NodeJS in haxe. You get compile time checking, code completion etc. And clean Javascipt code at the end ...