>Tracy,
>
>> I also agree with his statement: Since it is a general truism in the software industry that the number of bugs per thousand lines of code is constant irrespective of programming language, the more you can get done in fewer lines of code, the less defects you will have in your software.
>
>As much as I would like that sentence to be true, for I like dynamic languages much better than static ones, I have a hard time believing it, as if I define a bug as an error in a production program, the compiler of the static language would have found many bugs before I deploy, after all that is the big advantage of them, right?

Not necessarily. Since there's a number of things you cannot do because of their non-dynamic nature, and the requirements are still the same (customers don't care what you use), you'll have to add many lines of code to make up for these deficiencies. And in these lines of code, there'll be your chance to make new bugs.