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

Gleb Peregud gleber.p@REDACTED
Tue Oct 21 16:46:14 CEST 2008

On 10/21/08, Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@REDACTED> wrote:
> I'm sure that there's a simple and convincing answer to this.
IMHO the reason is two-fold. First - historical, i.e. it was largely
based on Prolog. Second - strong typing would complicated hot code
swapping a lot. Having two versions of single function with different
types accepted would be quite cumbersome to handle. What if there are
multiple nodes in a cluster having different versions of some module?
It wouldn't be easy to handle it in strong typed language, imvho.
Though I'm not saying it is impossible ;)

> I'm finding myself having to dig into the source code of libraries or
> plough through often erratic documentation all the time which really
> slows down productivity. Am I thinking about this all wrong? Is there
> a guiding principle that will help me as I learn?
> /Steve
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

Gleb Peregud

Every minute is to be grasped.
Time waits for nobody.
-- Inscription on a Zen Gong

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list