Erlang vs Linux
Wed Feb 26 16:35:50 CET 2003
>> That leaves us with [functional, dynamic_typing]
> Well we write a lot of unit tests and I personally find
> that the dynamic typing helps one write unit tests
> quickly. So most of the things that static type checking
> gives you are covered by intention-driven testing, which
> seems like a more powerful combination than [static_typing,
> Of course [static_typing, lots_of_unit_tests] is pretty
> hard to fight. Hmm....
One can try, though. I certainly enjoy trying out ideas
much more than finishing things off. Static typing really
turns me off because I find it difficult to completely
re-architect the data structures, the main method I use
when experimenting with new ideas.
I find Haskell difficult to read, bordering on gibberish,
(and I used to enjoy writing toy APL programs)
and would not at all be happy with a strongly-typed erlang.
I find functional, dynamically typed languages capable of
a much higher level of reuse.
Get the code working first, then optimize. I would alter that
with type checking to: discover the data structures that make
the task trivial, then let the compiler check the final code.
I don't mind adding types later, but in the beginning it stifles
creativity and prevents you from finding optimal solutions.
More information about the erlang-questions