> Like having dictionaries that are able to hold whatever you want is so incredible when you compare to trying to do the equivalent in Java for example.

Can't you just make a dictionary of objects, same as in C#? Except that in C#, if you really want to, you can also use `dynamic` to get python-like behavior.

Otherwise, generally speaking, in a strongly typed language you want to figure out what those objects have in common and put that inside an interface. If you can't modify those objects just slap an adapter pattern on top.

The result is a dictionary of objects that adhere to a specific interface, which defines all the properties and procedures that are relevant to the domain and the problem.

This makes thinking about the problem much easier from a type theoretical perspective because it lets you abstract away the concrete details of each object while preserving the fundamental aspects that you care about.

I guess that it takes two different mindsets to in order to appreciate the pros and cons of dynamic vs static programming. There are certainly many pros for dynamic programming, but I'm more comfortable thinking about problems in generic terms where every relation and constraint is laid bare in front of me, one level removed from the actual implementation.