Erlang language issues

Sean Hinde <>
Mon Apr 22 18:35:41 CEST 2002


> The actual porting problem is deemed to be minor, as
> long as the language changes are minor.
> --
> 
> So that's one data point (which I hope I summarized fairly). 
> Anybody else
> want to comment, please do.

OK, I'll add that from a T-Mobile (UK) (I am practising not saying the old
name!) point of view, with only our several years work worth of codebase, I
would be happy to migrate code in such cases if it improves the language.

Apart from anything else we don't have any pesky external customers (only
pesky internal ones :-) ).

> In closing, I'd like to say that I do _not_ propose continuing changes
> to the language in this way. Not at all. But I do think we 
> need an orderly
> way to change things when the language is getting hairy.

I'd actually be happy to see any deprecated features disappear within a
release or two (so long as there's a better replacement - even better again
if there are automated update tools).

Sean



NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
This email (including attachments) is confidential.  If you have received
this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this
email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any
reliance upon its contents.  We cannot accept liability for any breaches of
confidence arising through use of email.  Any opinions expressed in this
email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect our opinions.  We will not accept responsibility for any commitments
made by our employees outside the scope of our business.  We do not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of such information.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list