Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Pascal Costanza]

Andrew Dalke wrote:

> Pascal Costanza:
> 
>>The set of programs that are useful but cannot be checked by a static
>>type system is by definition bigger than the set of useful programs that
>>can be statically checked. So dynamically typed languages allow me to
>>express more useful programs than statically typed languages.
> 
> 
> Ummm, both are infinite and both are countably infinite, so those sets
> are the same size.  You're falling for Hilbert's Paradox.
> 
> Also, while I don't know a proof, I'm pretty sure that type inferencing
> can do addition (and theorem proving) so is equal in power to
> programming.

Just give me a static type system CLOS + MOP.

>>I don't need a study for that statement because it's a simple argument:
>>if the language doesn't allow me to express something in a direct way,
>>but requires me to write considerably more code then I have considerably
>>more opportunities for making mistakes.
> 
> 
> The size comparisons I've seen (like the great programming language
> shootout) suggest that Ocaml and Scheme require about the same amount
> of code to solve small problems.  Yet last I saw, Ocaml is strongly typed
> at compile time.  How do you assume then that strongly&statically typed
> languages require "considerable more code"?

_small_ problems?


Pascal