[erlang-questions] Why isn't erlang strongly typed?

Steve Davis <>
Tue Nov 4 19:31:05 CET 2008



On Nov 4, 10:04 am, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
> On Thu Oct 23 02:04:47 CEST 2008, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> -snip-
>
>
> Traits?
>
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Research/Traits/
>
Very interesting document. My take on this is that OOP seems to be
struggling against its own dictum that "everything is an object that
has methods that define its behavior". My personal assessment of all
that is that not all actions, or _functions_, are adequately covered
by "methods" constrained in this way. You'll note that the
"traits" (which are to my mind a 'hack' to resolve the limitation on
methods) are disallowed from reading state, which seems to confirm the
diagnosis.

On the flip side, I also think that not everything is a function, and
that objects do have a place in a programming language that goes
beyond simple record definitions as preprocessor macros.

/s





More information about the erlang-questions mailing list