To quote from that posting:

"Static typing can make programs more concise: I can write

     getLine >>= print . (/2) . read

or

     getLine >>= print . not . read

rather than

     getLine >>= print . (/2) . readDouble

or

     getLine >>= print . not . readBool

What happens here is that the correct read function is selected by the
static type system based on the return value of the expression that is
executed beforehand. In a statically typed language, the return type can
be guaranteed to be of a single deterministic type. In a dynamically
typed language, you can never know what the return value of a function
will be (unless you use a type inferencer for optizimation purposes, but
that _is_ static typing).

It's interesting to read the discussion that follows the posting above.

This was the first time I have seen a real example of increased
expressive power of static type systems, which is far more interesting
than the usual hogwash about early detection of so-called "errors",
better documentation and better efficiency.

Pascal