Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote: > 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.
Yes. However, unfortunately statically typed languages also reject programs that don't have such bugs. It's a tradeoff whether you want to spend time to deal with them or not. > So whil eit may take onger to get a program thatgets > past the compiler, it takes less time to get a program that works. That's incorrect. See http://haskell.org/papers/NSWC/jfp.ps - especially Figure 3. 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
