[erlang-questions] Why is Erlang what it is?
Thu Dec 14 23:45:12 CET 2006
t ty wrote:
> My intro to FP was via Haskell and prior to that I used Eiffel. I'm a
> fan of static typing however I haven't seen empirical evidence
> supporting the statement that static typing reduces testing. To be
> fair Dominic did say *might*.
I haven't seen such evidence either. Perhaps it is hard to find because
from the industrial point of view quite rare (if any at all) to find a
company that would actively use multiple languages (such as Haskell,
OCaml, Erlang, C++, Java, etc) for product development, and do such a
comparative analysis. Same goes for academic institutions that don't
have the same project implemented and maintained in such diverse
languages that would allow to make reasonable conclusions on reduction
> You also bring up a good point. If the compiler, to paraphrase Ulf,
> goes medieval with your code until you conform aren't you just
> replacing testing effort with coding effort ?
On the other hand, where would you rather find an error during the
coding phase or the testing phase? :-)
> Furthur more the purpose of testing is to find defects not to prove
> they do not exists. i.e. the amount of testing should not decrease,
> after all your static checking typed inferred compiler might have
> typing bugs too :)
Frankly, where I think static typing is advantageous is in code
refactoring. The compiler with static checking helps a lot at fixing
all inter-dependencies when types are being modified.
More information about the erlang-questions