Guards and side effects
Fri Mar 11 11:28:05 CET 2005
From: "Thomas Johnsson XA (LN/EAB)" <thomas.xa.johnsson@REDACTED>
> There are many opportunities for the programmer to shoot him/herself in the
> but to hold the programmer in strict harness in this particular corner of the
> language, and nowhere else, I find that misguided.
Good point, I think. The language proper should not be restricted by what are
mostly implementation/optimization issues. And extra power might open
possibilities that now are closed.
However, Erlang has a very pragmatic background. If the extra power means a
noticeable slowdown in applications that don't use that power, it's not going to
be easy to convince users it's good idea.
Also, a more powerful language also needs more top-of-the-range developers. Not
that the existing ones aren't good enough, but the new generation might be even
more tempted choose Java, because all it's safeguards don't let them shoot
themselves in the foot as easily [*]
So IMHO it is a very difficult balance to keep.
[*] More precisely, in Java it looks like it's more safe. One can do silly stuff
there too :-)
More information about the erlang-questions