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

Matthew McDonnell <>
Sat Dec 16 01:32:13 CET 2006


On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Thomas Lindgren wrote:

> 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.)

Hi,
	This is a bit tangential to your question but there a number of
papers describing the benefits of using a language that goes beyond static
typing to full formal method verification techniques on the Praxis: High
Integrity Systems website, where they discuss SparkAda.

http://www.praxis-his.com/sparkada/publications_journals.asp

In particular the following paper did some quantitative analysis of errors
per LOC
"Correctness by Construction: Better Can Also Be Cheaper"  (PDF 312kb)
Peter Amey, Praxis. CrossTalk Magazine, March 2002.

The sample chapters from the spark book are also interesing, in particular
there is a discussion on page 7 of how bugs are found:
1. by the compiler
2. at run time by a language check
3. by testing
4. by the prgram crashing :)

http://www.praxis-his.com/sparkada/pdfs/sampler_final.pdf

Cheers,
	Matt

Matt McDonnell
Email: 
Web:    http://www.matt-mcdonnell.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattmcd



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list