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

Steve Davis <>
Tue Oct 21 17:14:00 CEST 2008

On Oct 21, 9:45 am, Rapsey <> wrote:
> I don't understand. What does this have to do with the language being
> strongly typed?

Well, the way I think about it is that types let you define what the
function expects, and what you can expect in return. So it would
provide a contract or agreed protocol in a far more cohesive way that
is possible right now in erlang (cf. "spec" and "record"). Types would
speed up coding as it would avoid you having to dig around in every
function's source to see what you should expect in return. There's
probably some fatal flaw in this thinking -- which is why I asked the
question :)


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list