It’s certainly possible to use it as a euphemism, if not an outright pejorative. “Dynamic truthfulness”, “dynamic sense of morality”, etc.

There's also dynamic scoping; as opposed to lexical scoping a.k.a. static scoping.

You can find defenders of dynamic typing, but dynamic scope is now widely seen as a mistake. Or at least dynamic scope by default; it has specialised uses--and in Haskell the Reader Monad is basically isomorphic to dynamic scoping and no one complains about it.

Those are not pejorative names. They are descriptive names for (arguably) bad things.

And they are all much more enticing than the things deserve.

Compare and contrast https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill

'Idiot' and 'retard' didn't start out as pejorative either.

> dynamic scoping

Right you are. Even more horrible. The tcl language still has it!

Dynamic scope/binding is super useful, but I do not agree tcl does it or does it well, because it's not just shadowing the closure environment (ha), or changing globals in a dynamic-wind.

Perl's the only non-lisp I'm aware of that does dynamic binding well-enough to get the idea, but too many things just don't work:

    local *int = sub { return 69 }; print int("42");

is a particularly annoying one: You just can't do it. Other names might have better chances, e.g.

    package foo; sub int { 42 };
    package main; sub a{local *foo::int = sub { return 69 };&b(@_);} sub b{goto \&foo::int};
    print b("x"), a("x"), b("x"), a("x");

but this is a little unsatisfying.

> Perl's the only non-lisp I'm aware of that does dynamic binding well-enough to get the idea, [...]

Well, Haskell does dynamic binding in the form of the Reader Monad. It's well received there.

Erm no. The point is I want to have the ability to make any variable dynamic, not just work with a global variable that is really a getter.

The reader monad doesn't need to be global.

But yeah, by that standard, Haskell implements both dynamic scoping and mutable state via getters and setters. (Though, of course, you can go all out on these via lenses.)

Well, Tcl is kind of a mixture of scope rules. In some respects, e.g., within a proc, it's mainly a lexical environment, but of course dynamic scoping is introduced by commands like upvar/uplevel. FWIW Tcl programmers don't concern themselves very much with sorting out dynamic vs. lexical. In any case, Tcl programmers are careful to maximize static scoping. No doubt that's necessary to create reliable larger programs many of which have been written in Tcl.

So does emacs lisp, by default, although you can set it to lexical scope per-file (and it’s recommended to always do so).

I think EmacsLisp also does dynamic scoping. Or at least they used to about ten years ago. Not sure, if they fixed it?

Isnt dynamic scoping a bit similar to Dependency Injection? Maybe there's a form of it that could be useful. Like explicit dynamic scopes?

Well, isn't dependency injection just a more cumbersome way to say 'function arguments'? Dynamic scoping is exactly the same, it's basically equivalent to extra implicit function arguments that are passed through everywhere.

And yes, dynamic scopes can be useful in specific cases. What's wrong is having your variables scoped dynamically by default.