Cedric thinks that refactoring in Smalltalk is simpy a toy:

I can't believe that some people actually consider the dynamic refactoring approach used by the Smalltalk IDE as more than just a passing amusement.

I guess the Refacatoring Browser - standard equipment in all modern Smalltalks - is a toy then, and all of us Smalltalkers out here are simply engaged in mental masturbation.

Or maybe, we're busy being productive. Cedric's point about testing being required after a dynamic refactor is true, but pointless - if he thinks you don't need to test code in Java (or C#, etc) after refactoring, I feel sorry for the people he delivers to.

Like Cees, I'll admit that static typing allows for more precision in things like auto-completion. I'm also with him on this:

It’s not like we can’t see any advantage in the dead objects world it’s just that on the balance , the advantage is to dynamic languages. In my experience, they mesh better with how humans think and work a bit fuzzy at times, thriving on interaction, thinking fast and switching fast and needing tools that follow them. I don’t think, probably contrary to a lot of static typing adepts, that software is an engineering discipline (some thoughts I wrote up here and here). Tools need to be more like clay than like the machines in a factory assembly line, and a Smalltalk IDE is the ‘clay-est’ tool I have encountered so far…

I'll take the malleabity - and the molding power it brings - instead of the "power" to use Intellisense with the handcuffs that come with it