2 ms·

No, JA told that they planned to add type system, but their users didn't feel they need it. And, actually, they added types into Erlang: dyalizer. As for opti

by thesz 16y ago

No, JA told that they planned to add type system, but their users didn't feel they need it. And, actually, they added types into Erlang: dyalizer. As for optionality of static types... What is your experience, precisely? My tells me that type systems are, actually, your partners in program development. Quite intelligent partners - Haskell type system, Agda2 type system...

lelele 16y ago
> No, JA told that they planned to add type system, but their users didn't feel they need it. I know a different story. http://learnyousomeerlang.com/types-or-lack-thereof http://learnyousomeerlang.com/types-or-lack-thereof Begin reading from "Through the years, there were some attempts to build type systems on top of Erlang..." > And, actually, they added types into Erlang: dyalizer. Yes, and they did it right: type-checking should be a task performed by a different tool. > As for optionality of static types... What is your experience, precisely? My tells me that type systems are, actually, your partners in program development. Quite intelligent partners - Haskell type system, Agda2 type system... I do agree that static type systems are very helpful. What I don't like about them is that most incarnations of them force your program to be type-correct all the time. This is not the case when you are sketching a solution, or sometimes while fixing/improving code. Sometimes I was working on some part of a software, breaking the static typing of the program as a whole along the way, and the compiler kept complaining until I had fixed or commented out some other (currently not impacted) part of code. I've found that to be very annoying. I would have very much preferred such type errors to be just warnings until I was ready to finalize my fixes.
- thesz 16y ago
  >What I don't like about them is that most incarnations of them force your program to be type-correct all the time. I think that they require your program to be correct at the time of checking. >compiler kept complaining until I had fixed or commented out some other (currently not impacted) part of code Looks much like Visual Studio. Am I right?
  - lelele 16y ago
    > I think that they require your program to be correct at the time of checking. I don't understand: static typing requires all the source code - and I stress "all the source code" here, which encompasses code not reachable too, rather than the just the code you are working on - to be type correct, otherwise your program will neither compile nor run. > Looks much like Visual Studio. Am I right? Yes, but aren't all static typed languages the same? I've found that to be the case with C++, Java, Haskell.

by thesz 16y ago

lelele 16y ago

> No, JA told that they planned to add type system, but their users didn't feel they need it. I know a different story. http://learnyousomeerlang.com/types-or-lack-thereof http://learnyousomeerlang.com/types-or-lack-thereof Begin reading from "Through the years, there were some attempts to build type systems on top of Erlang..." > And, actually, they added types into Erlang: dyalizer. Yes, and they did it right: type-checking should be a task performed by a different tool. > As for optionality of static types... What is your experience, precisely? My tells me that type systems are, actually, your partners in program development. Quite intelligent partners - Haskell type system, Agda2 type system... I do agree that static type systems are very helpful. What I don't like about them is that most incarnations of them force your program to be type-correct all the time. This is not the case when you are sketching a solution, or sometimes while fixing/improving code. Sometimes I was working on some part of a software, breaking the static typing of the program as a whole along the way, and the compiler kept complaining until I had fixed or commented out some other (currently not impacted) part of code. I've found that to be very annoying. I would have very much preferred such type errors to be just warnings until I was ready to finalize my fixes.

thesz 16y ago
>What I don't like about them is that most incarnations of them force your program to be type-correct all the time. I think that they require your program to be correct at the time of checking. >compiler kept complaining until I had fixed or commented out some other (currently not impacted) part of code Looks much like Visual Studio. Am I right?
- lelele 16y ago
  > I think that they require your program to be correct at the time of checking. I don't understand: static typing requires all the source code - and I stress "all the source code" here, which encompasses code not reachable too, rather than the just the code you are working on - to be type correct, otherwise your program will neither compile nor run. > Looks much like Visual Studio. Am I right? Yes, but aren't all static typed languages the same? I've found that to be the case with C++, Java, Haskell.