Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!bcm!rice!sabry From: sabry@rice.edu (Amr Sabry) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Static typing and expressiveness Message-ID: <1991Apr8.150935.902@rice.edu> Date: 8 Apr 91 15:09:35 GMT References: Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Reply-To: sabry@rice.edu (Amr Sabry) Organization: Rice University Lines: 18 Originator: sabry@datura.rice.edu In article , chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up) writes: |> |> >The bottom line is a statically typed programming language prevents |> >you from writing some programs which are good programs (they |> |> Nope. Not true. Miranda and SML are both statically typed and its |> possible to simulate TM's or the full pure untyped lambda-calculus in both |> of them. You can't get more powerful than that. I think you are missing my point. Consider SML and Scheme. The first is statically typed and the second is dynamically typed and both can simulate a Turing Machine. However, the following programs will run in Scheme with no (type) errors, but will fail to type in SML. (cons 10 #t) (lambda (f) (cons (f 10) (f #t)))