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

Holger Hoffstaette <>
Tue Nov 4 20:38:13 CET 2008


On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:31:05 -0800, Steve Davis wrote:

> 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". [..]

That's not caused by methods per se but by Smalltalk's single-inheritance
nature and the concept of identity. IIRC Self had none of the problems
of Traits (remember they were just tacked on). Similarly, functional
re-composition via AOP works very well even in Java, and allows introduced
behaviour to bring its own state.
Does a representation of a function have identity? If so, does that make
it an object? :)

-h





More information about the erlang-questions mailing list