Re: Erlang type system and static vs. dynamic types

[Steve Dekorte <address@hidden>]

On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Russ Ross wrote:
> I was referring to application-level boundaries and modules.

In the case of reusable libraries, C++ has suffered from it's 
implementation of static typing. It used it's static types to reference 
both ivars and methods statically in libraries so that applications 
using them need to be recompiled when either changes. Worse still is 
that it makes using interconnected libraries from multiple vendors 
within an app almost impossible as a change to one may require the 
recompilation and redistribution of all others as well as the app 
itself. C, of course, has the same problem, but it didn't sell itself 
on reusability. I know a static type system doesn't *have* to be used 
this way, but it almost always is.

Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html