[dalailambda]

While I agree that the OTP perhaps is not as easily statically typed, since it was built with Erlang in mind, I do think that static typing adds a layer of robustness to distributed systems, especially if you design it that way upfront. In my experience the problem comes when you try to apply static typing to a dynamic system.

[leshow]

> In my experience the problem comes when you try to apply static typing to a dynamic system.

As in, because it compiles down to a dynamic system, it's no good?

There are plenty of languages that give us strong static guarantees and compile down to dynamic or untyped languages. Look at Purescript, Elm, etc. They all do quite well compiling down to JS.

Don't forget that assembly isn't strongly typed either, and most languages compile down to that. I don't see anything wrong with a static typed layer that compiles to dynamic code, the interface you're providing is still type safe.

[dalailambda]

In regards to Purescript/Typescript, they're both statically typed and that results in friction when trying to integrate with the existing JavaScript ecosystem/libraries. Erlang/OTP might be different, but there will probably be situations where the type system is either incompatible with a certain library, or the type system is made less strict (e.g. an any type).

[leshow]

That wasn't what I got out of the previous post, it seemed to be saying there was something inherently unsafe about compiling down to a dynamic language.