[erlang-questions] Why is Erlang what it is?
Thu Dec 14 12:57:36 CET 2006
Kirill Zaborski wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Mats Cronqvist <mats.cronqvist@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Kirill Zaborski wrote:
>>> Mats Cronqvist <mats.cronqvist@REDACTED> wrote:
>> imo, the only thing that could change this is compelling evidence that
>> typing would improve ericsson's products.
> so there were no such evidence shown?
no. if anything, the contrary(*).
> And I'm sorry about "no meaningful" it's a bit insulting, but Ulf have
> given quite a good answer.
well, i think i misunderstood your question; hence my answer WAS meaningless :>
(*) i'm not talking about wadlers (or any other) type system in particular.
but a few years ago i did a study on erlang-related bug reports in our live
product. the conclusion was that once we get to system test, we find essentially
no more type-related bugs (**).
(**) running dialyzer on well-tested code will turn up tons of errors. alas,
that almost always turns out to be dead code.
More information about the erlang-questions