Re: Why I don't believe in static typing
From: Isaac Gouy (igouy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/03
- Next message: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: More static type fun."
- Previous message: Duane Rettig: "Re: More static type fun."
- In reply to: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Next in thread: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Reply: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 18 Nov 2003 17:15:13 -0800
Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@web.de> wrote in message news:<bpdins$la$1@news.oberberg.net>...
> Isaac Gouy wrote:
> > Maybe the interesting question is "How can we program systems which
> > behave in a reasonable manner in the presence of software errors?"
> >
> > The Erlang community seems to have some coherent ideas about that
> > question.
-snip-
> Just my understanding, as far as I gleaned it from Joe Armstrong's
> doctoral thesis. (Thanks to Joe for explaining the issues so clearly, it
> made a lot of things explicit that would have remained implicit for me
> if not written down in his thesis.)
Yes, now I've read through the thesis Erlang seems very pragmatic -
before Erlang just seemed cool ;-)
He repeatedly credits the fundamental principles in Jim Gray's work at
Tandem computers: "Why Do Computers Stop And What Can Be Done About
It?"
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-85.7.html
best wishes, Isaac
- Next message: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: More static type fun."
- Previous message: Duane Rettig: "Re: More static type fun."
- In reply to: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Next in thread: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Reply: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|