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

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Dominic Williams <xpdoka@REDACTED>
wrote:

> >  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.
> 
> This goes to show that with adequate testing, one
> can make reliable 
> systems with dynamic typing.
> 
> It seems to me this reasoning, although, valuable,
> does not refute the 
> argument that static typing might have /saved/ you a
> lot of testing effort.

Well, that is a hypothesis, but what is the evidence
for testing time (or even better, total time) actually
being saved by using static typing? I'd expect
projects using Haskell or O'Caml to also do some
amount of testing, so the question is, I guess, are
the savings in this column, if any, significant?

While I have read many anecdotal claims and
testimonials over the years for the joys of static
typing (esp. in those recurring usenet flame wars),
has anyone actually measured any gains in development
time, reduced bugs, improved reliability and so on,
for static typing over dynamic typing? Does anyone
know of any relevant published studies? If so, where
can I find them and what were the results? (I'd
genuinely like to know.)

Best,
Thomas



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com