I like slim's answer. I do spend a crazy amount of time in Java and C++ crafting custom data structures that are just free in Python/Ruby. And crafting specialized functions to process these custom data structures. Yes, in C++, STL is really nice. Yes, Generics in Java are nice. They help create custom data structures much faster, however they still require a lot of thought and consideration.
However, there is a more fundamental reason why dynamic languages are easier to work with. It is a deep idea which is called duck typing. Some comments above refer to duck typing, but please take time to reflect on what duck typing is. It is a fundamentally different way to view the world. A view that is incompatible with languages like Java and C++.
Duck typing means that you waste not time in defining what a duck is. By not having to formally define your objects you save a lot of time and energy. Getting definitions right is hard. Have a look at this blog post of mine where I give examples: Formal definitions are less useful than you think
Duck typing has proven extremely useful. The "Must Ignore" principle in XML is what has made XML so significant and useful on the web. But that's just an instance of duck typing.
Another way to express duck typing is by the Web mantra "Be strict in what you send, generous in what you accept". That is also a very fundamental idea.
Finally, you may want to back to a long blog post of mine where I explain duck typing and how it relates to things like AI and modelling: Duck Typing, Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy
In a language implementing classical inheritance like Java, C# or C++ you start by creating a class--a blueprint for your objects--and then you can create new objects from that class or you can extend the class, defining a new class that augments the original class.
In JavaScript you first create an object (there is no concept of class), then you can augment your own object or create new objects from it. It's not difficult, but a little foreign and hard to metabolize for somebody used to the classical way.
Example:
//Define a functional object to hold persons in JavaScript
var Person = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
//Add dynamically to the already defined object a new getter
Person.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
};
//Create a new object of type Person
var john = new Person("John");
//Try the getter
alert(john.getName());
//If now I modify person, also John gets the updates
Person.prototype.sayMyName = function() {
alert('Hello, my name is ' + this.getName());
};
//Call the new method on john
john.sayMyName();
Until now I've been extending the base object, now I create another object and then inheriting from Person.
//Create a new object of type Customer by defining its constructor. It's not
//related to Person for now.
var Customer = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
//Now I link the objects and to do so, we link the prototype of Customer to
//a new instance of Person. The prototype is the base that will be used to
//construct all new instances and also, will modify dynamically all already
//constructed objects because in JavaScript objects retain a pointer to the
//prototype
Customer.prototype = new Person();
//Now I can call the methods of Person on the Customer, let's try, first
//I need to create a Customer.
var myCustomer = new Customer('Dream Inc.');
myCustomer.sayMyName();
//If I add new methods to Person, they will be added to Customer, but if I
//add new methods to Customer they won't be added to Person. Example:
Customer.prototype.setAmountDue = function(amountDue) {
this.amountDue = amountDue;
};
Customer.prototype.getAmountDue = function() {
return this.amountDue;
};
//Let's try:
myCustomer.setAmountDue(2000);
alert(myCustomer.getAmountDue());
var Person = function (name) {
this.name = name;
};
Person.prototype.getName = function () {
return this.name;
};
var john = new Person("John");
alert(john.getName());
Person.prototype.sayMyName = function () {
alert('Hello, my name is ' + this.getName());
};
john.sayMyName();
var Customer = function (name) {
this.name = name;
};
Customer.prototype = new Person();
var myCustomer = new Customer('Dream Inc.');
myCustomer.sayMyName();
Customer.prototype.setAmountDue = function (amountDue) {
this.amountDue = amountDue;
};
Customer.prototype.getAmountDue = function () {
return this.amountDue;
};
myCustomer.setAmountDue(2000);
alert(myCustomer.getAmountDue());
While as said I can't call setAmountDue(), getAmountDue() on a Person.
//The following statement generates an error.
john.setAmountDue(1000);
Best Answer
The ability of the interpreter to deduce type and type conversions makes development time faster, but it also can provoke runtime failures which you just cannot get in a statically typed language where you catch them at compile time. But which one's better (or even if that's always true) is hotly discussed in the community these days (and since a long time).
A good take on the issue is from Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed: The End of the Cold War Between Programming Languages by Erik Meijer and Peter Drayton at Microsoft: