[ebingdom]

As a Haskell programmer, this argument does not resonate with me. I find most dynamically typed languages (e.g., JavaScript) verbose compared to what I'm used to. Of course, plenty of statically typed languages are verbose too. But static typing is not a sufficient condition for a language to be verbose.

I associate verbosity with object-oriented programming, whether statically typed or not.

[danieltanfh95]

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]

> 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]

clojure spec will do this in the way you're asking.

[ncmncm]

Not even wrong.

Without compile-time types, you are not equipped to express serious compile-time work.