HD Have we placed too much emphasis on architecture?
BS No, at least not the way I would define architecture. On the contrary, there is too little emphasis on architecture and too much poor coding with little understanding of structural principles. I suspect a major problem with architecture is that many programmers have only a vague idea of what makes good code good. Being able to recognize it when you see it is not enough. Having rules for what not to do is not enough. We need articulated prescriptive rules.

HD Do you see a serious shift towards dynamic languages in the near future?
BS Not really. I think people are comparing apples and oranges too often. I don't think we have a choice between static and dynamic languages in general and furthermore I don't think languages cleanly fit into those two categories: most if not all dynamic languages have aspects that are statically determined, and all the major static languages can do things that require run-time determination of the meaning of values. There are fashions, of course, and I can't guess about those, but I think that many real-world language choices are rationally made based on the requirements of an application, an application area, and/or the skills of the available developers. For example, I'd not try to implement a Java runtime in (say) Ruby or express a heavily interactive simulation language as C++ (as opposed to its implementation).