Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote: > > > On a similar note, is a statically typed langauge more or less > > expressive than a dynamically typed language? Some would say less, as > > you can write programs in a dynamically typed language that you can't > > compile in a statically typed language (without a lot of encoding), > > whereas the converse isn't true. > > It's important to get the levels right here: A programming language > with a rich static type system is more expressive at the type level, > but less expressive at the base level (for some useful notion of > expressiveness ;). > > > However, I think this is misleading, > > as it ignores the feedback issue: It takes longer for the average > > programmer to get the program working in the dynamically typed > > language. > > This doesn't seem to capture what I hear from Haskell programmers who > say that it typically takes quite a while to convince the Haskell > compiler to accept their programs. (They perceive this to be > worthwhile because of some benefits wrt correctness they claim to get > in return.)
That's the point: Bugs that in dynamically typed languages would require testing to find are found by the compiler in a statically typed language. So whil eit may take onger to get a program thatgets past the compiler, it takes less time to get a program that works. Torben -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list