I guess it's pile-on time from the dynamic language zealots, including me!, around Boo, a language that may have some promise. This post does not pile on Boo, rather, on its critic at http://www.panopticoncentral.net
I will add that one major problem with our compilers today is that entirely too much information is locked up in them. We've started exposing compilation information through mechanisms such as the Visual Studio code model, but we need to go a lot further to enable more advanced and extensible tools. It's certainly possible to expose a lot more information about what exists in the code that's being compiled without having to make that information modifiable outside of the compiler, and I think that's something that's unquestionably worth pursuing in the long run.Complexity begets complexity. Rigid languages are the foundation of a "langauge priesthood" just as humongous mainframes were the foundation of a "computing priesthood" before the personal computer.
The author is apparently against "extensible languages". Arguing against "extensible languages" while promoting C# is an oxymoron. It's just that C# has crippled the extension mechanism and will be reinstating them over time in slightly incompatible syntaxes.