Are the critiques in "All the things I hate about Python" valid?

[Antoon Pardon]

On 20-02-18 16:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:23:44 +0100, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>>> Okay. Now create a constraint on a name in C++ such that it can only
>>> accept integers representing A.D. years which, on the Gregorian
>>> calendar, are leap years. (Using a dedicated integer-like type is
>>> permitted.) It must accept all multiples of four, except those which
>>> are multiples of one hundred, unless they're also multiples of four
>>> hundred.
>>>
>>> That's what Steve asked for. Can you do it? Or is the C++ type system
>>> not flexible enough for that?
>> Steve had multiple contributions in this thread. I didn't react to the
>> one where he asked for that.
> Yes you did: you refused to meet the challenge, stating (and I quote):

Look, you stated at a certain point that dynamic languages really excelled
at run time checks. That suggests that static languages don't. So when I
point out that static languages are just as good at run time checks, you
refer about how you want static languages to do their checks at compile time.

But the fact that you want static languages to do those things a compile
time, is not a good reason to claim that dynamic languages really excell
at run time checks, when in fact static languages are just as good at
doing run time checks.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.