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.) Pascal -- 3rd European Lisp Workshop July 3 - Nantes, France - co-located with ECOOP 2006 http://lisp-ecoop06.bknr.net/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
