[erlang-questions] Why is Erlang what it is?

[Mats Cronqvist]

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 :>

   mats

(*) 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 (**).
www.erlang.se/workshop/2004/matsbilder.pdf

(**) running dialyzer on well-tested code will turn up tons of errors. alas, 
that almost always turns out to be dead code.