> 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

> 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.