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

Kevin Scaldeferri kevin@REDACTED
Wed Oct 22 16:51:45 CEST 2008

On Oct 22, 2008, at 5:01 AM, Steve Davis wrote:

> I am now receiving the following message: There isn't a simple answer.
> I guess if I accept Ulf's definition of strongly typed, then it's true
> that Erlang is "strongly typed", and mea culpa for using terminology
> that's known to be ambiguous, but I wasn't sure that confining the
> question to "statically typed" was the accurate way to phrase my query
> or to elicit a useful answer/discussion.

You don't have to "accept Ulf's definition".  Strong typing and static  
typing mean entirely different things.  Many people misunderstand this  
(which is odd because the most popular statically typed languages are  
rather weakly typed), but that doesn't mean that they don't have  
definitions which are being abused.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list