Fri Apr 4 21:58:12 CEST 2003
Claus Reinke wrote:
> > Could someone explain why static typing is considered so "bad"
> > or "unnecessary"? I think I could be sold on this (I _do_
> > consider myself to be open-minded), I just need to hear the
> > right argument.
> static typing isn't at all bad
> as long as you have to choose between advanced type
> systems and all the goodies Erlang provides, your choice will
> depend on your applications. And for typical Erlang applications,
> Erlang goodies are so indispensible that the choice is easy.
> Unfortunately, his correspondents didn't quite get it, but next
> time some self-appointed evangelist asks how you can do any
> safety-critical applications without static typing, the proper
> answer is "I'd love to have a better type system, but how can you
> do any safety-critical applications without cheap concurrency,
> distribution, fault-tolerance, ..."!-)
With the risk of embarking on a perennial discussion and opening
up Pandora's box, I personally think that the proper answer to
"I'd love to have a type system that once I've developed
my application I can optionally employ to catch possible
type errors that may exist in my code, and to use as
documentation about my data structures which is
However, I do not necessarily want the type system
to stand on my way while I am experimenting, developing
prototypes, or when I simply feel like writing programs
that I know are OK but the type system somehow does not
share my view on the subject..."
More information about the erlang-questions