3 ms·
As a clojure programmer, I'd say the same of Haskell. Oop is less expressive than FP, and static typing is less expressive than dynamic typing. These are usuall
by danieltanfh95 4y ago
As a clojure programmer, I'd say the same of Haskell. Oop is less expressive than FP, and static typing is less expressive than dynamic typing. These are usually just tradeoffs people choose for their problem domain
- ebingdom 4y ago> static typing is less expressive than dynamic typing Here's something I can express with static typing that I can't express with dynamic typing: "this function returns a function which returns an integer for every input". There's no test you could write to verify this property. So I'm inclined to say that static typing is more expressive, since it gives me a way to express and verify properties like this.
- blain_the_train 4y agoclojure spec will do this in the way you're asking.
- ncmncm 4y agoNot even wrong. Without compile-time types, you are not equipped to express serious compile-time work.