Dynamic languages are the future

[Richard Carlsson]

Nick Linker wrote:
> I wonder why Erlang is not Lisp? I mean why inventors of Erlang chose
> to create its own language instead of creating just ERTS-specific
> library for LISP (or at least Scheme)?

Here are some reasons why Lisp might not be a perfect match to
the problem they wanted to solve:
	- no built-in concurrency
	- destructive updates abound (in Scheme, too)
	- no pattern matching

And if you're going to fix those things, you might as well use a syntax
that feels more comfortable to you. In particular, pattern matching
makes function definitions and selective receives much more readable,
which I assume was an important goal for the kind of industrial
applications that Erlang was created for.

In most respects, Erlang _is_ a concurrent, nondestructive Lisp with
a Prolog-inspired syntax that focuses on pattern matching and rules.

	/Richard