Protip: Try pudb. It will blow your mind.
Static languages (usually) force you to use interfaces and sub-typing just so common code can be reused. Duck typing is a much nicer way of working - without having to jump through seemingly unnecessary hoops. The situation is even worse when you code for testability. Things that really shouldn't have an interface now require one, so you can mock out the object appropriately. This is all avoided in a language with duck typing.
This is actually where Go has a great impact. You get your static type checking without being forced to use explicit interfaces. It essentially uses duck typing for interface implementation.
You're free to enjoy static typing over dynamic typing all you like - but you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking dynamic typing is inferior in any way. It is different - just like imperative vs functional is different. You make a series of tradeoffs, that is all.
I started Typescript by subclassing but as I work more and more with it, I subclass less and less, and delegate more and more.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Functional-Programming-With...
tl;dr -- Composition is to functional programming as inheritance is to OO programming.
> bad developing experience, code needs more debugging, it is harder to maintain and overall productivity is lower
All of these observations are highly subjective.
> Developing experience:
I much prefer developing in python than java. If IDEs factor in, there are a number available for python, none of which I use, because I find a simple editor is usually enough.
> code needs more debugging
That's a function of the problem and the developer. The run, check, edit cycle in python is a lot quicker than using your IDE to run, check, edit, compile. There are debuggers available for nearly every language that allow you to step and inspect.
> harder to maintain
Disagree. When you have code 1/5th (number pulled from my ass) the size codebase, maintainability can be much better. Unit testing helps, regardless of the language.
> productivity
A developer proficient in language [X] should be just as productive as a different developer proficient in language [Y]. Creating a massive type hierarchy of classes and interfaces is a tonne of overhead when you are trying to express a simple idea. In a language like python, you might write a simple class (or two), and use dynamic typing appropriately. A java developer may use code generation and IDE shortcuts to lessen the amount of total code they have to write though.
The advantages and disadvantages of dynamic and statically typed languages are fairly well known. Neither is perfect all the time and for each person. Just because you don't like dynamic languages, it does not mean they don't have their virtues.