Erlang vs Linux

Jay Nelson jay@REDACTED
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,
 > no_unit_testing].

 > 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 mailing list