Re: Erlang type system and static vs. dynamic types

[Steve Dekorte <address@hidden>]

On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 11:10 AM, Ken Shan wrote:
> On 2003-05-03T06:07:45-0400, Russ Ross wrote:
>> Static typing ala ML
>> or Haskell always seems like a good idea for large projects (which
>> is a common argument), but in my experience enforcing abstraction
>> boundaries and a good module system is far more important for a
>> group effort than what is happening inside a function or its
>> interface.
>
> But abstraction boundaries and module systems *are* static typing!

Could you please define what you mean by "abstraction boundaries" and 
"module systems"? I know of a number of ways in which these terms are 
used and most are either unrelated too or suffer when used with static 
typing.

Cheers,
Steve
Io, a small language: http://www.iolanguage.com/