Extending arithmetic

Steven H. Rogers, PhD. <>
Tue Feb 11 14:24:49 CET 2003

Joe Armstrong wrote:
>   Ok, ... reconsidering ....
>   Ok  if we add  a feature  X to  the language  we should  also remove
> something.
>   If we just add things the  system will get more and more complicated
> - so every time we add something we should take something away.
>   Wirth  said  that the  difficult  thing  about  language design  was
> deciding what  to leave out  - it's *easy*  to think of things  to add
> (this group  comes up with  several ideas per  month) - but  much more
> difficult to decide what to leave out.
>   If we want the language to remain simple we have to remove things as
> well as add things.
>   If we're going  to add anything this should be in  the area where it
> is *impossible* (or very difficult)  to do things with the language as
> it is today.
>   That  means  I'd like  to  see  additions  for things  like  process
> migration and safe agent programming etc.
>   /Joe
You're right.  Job One for a language designer is saying NO to most of 
the neat feature requests from the peanut gallery.  Simplicity is a 
viture.  One of the problems with Ada was the large committee which 
defined the language.  They had to include a lot of pet features to 
arrive at a concensus on the requirements.

  _    Steven H. Rogers, PhD.
<_`   email: 
|_>   Weblog http://shrogers.com/portal/Members/steve/blog
| \   "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about
       programming is not worth knowing." - Alan Perlis

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list