siplux

While "new" is somewhat ambiguous I could have expanded upon that statement, the additional being "or currently being augmented with a type or type-like system". Ruby -> Crystal, JavaScript -> Typescript / Flow, Clojure -> Typed Clojure, Elixir -> typespecs (while not a true type system, it's in the same vein).

I'm not suggesting the superiority of static typing, but it does feel like there is a trend moving in that direction.

While I imagine this is somewhat contentious, I'd say that compilers have improved to the point where lacking types isn't really an advantage anymore. I am unaware of any new language in development that is dynamically typed, Crystal as a particularly poignant example.

These days I'm spending a lot of time in Kotlin (recreational). I find it a joy to work with and would probably reach for it for similar tasks. That they're working on LLVM and JS targets makes it even more attractive.

Even beyond learning, so long as it isn't a carbon copy of an existing game, it's totally valid. Most games are just variations of existing sets of mechanics known to work well together. It's both great for learning as well as providing validation that your gameplay will be solid in the end. Once you have the basis there it's super easy to tweak smaller aspects to really make it your own.

Creates intermediate array.

Which actually can have a pretty high performance penalty.

Having originally learned to program on dynamic languages, and still primarily work with dynamic languages, I really want to dislike static languages, but the more I work with them (if they have a modern, reasonable type system, i.e not java), the more I like them.

Although having an ML-style type system would be preferable, and type inference, I can't really think of many disadvantages to type systems in general use. The fact that people are adding type-like systems to JavaScript and modern languages like Clojure and Elixir is telling.