[erlang-questions] Static type checking...

Steve Davis <>
Tue Apr 30 02:40:53 CEST 2013


It's my experience that attempts at static type checks ends up in "turtles all the way down" and enormously onerous code.

So I'm thinking that Joe A had a very big deal point (beyond the design of UBF) with regard to UBF contracts?

Is this because, despite the limitations of records, what really lacks is some kind of way of expressing formal boundary checking?

I do know that RV expresses a liking for, and recommends, boundary checks (which work for me).

Is this validation "layer" really the missing link? Is it possible to find an enforcement for that (and not engage in strict typing)?

Throwing this out as my 2c,
/s


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list