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
> 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.
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.
|_> 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