[erlang-questions] Was Re: Bug ?! now Erlang comment (LONG LONG)

[Michael Leonhard]

I discovered Erlang only 2 years ago, but can appreciate most of the
points Robert expressed.  Erlang is a great language that can evolve
to become greater.  It seems as though everyone acknowledges the
shortcomings of the current Erlang, but no one can improve it because
of the need for backwards compatibility.  Erlang is already breaking
out into the mainstream development community.  Now Ericsson's
mountains of Erlang code seem like a dead weight attached to Erlang's
neck, preventing it from bursting through the surface of the ocean of
obscurity.  Erlang needs to reach the surface and get a breath of
fresh air.  How about forking the language and redesigning it to fix
the problems?

-Michael

Michael Leonhard
michael206@REDACTED
http://tamale.net/

On 10/17/06, Robert Virding <robert.virding@REDACTED> wrote:
<snip>
> > Omn the whole I think we got things right but there are some things
> > which are wrong. Some are new, some are old and some are even my fault.
> > :-) So here is a collection of comments, major and minor (major marked
> > with +):
<snip>
> > Joe and I discussed this alot and we agreed on the principle but not on
> > all the details. I would like to see something like:
<snip>
> > Having everything consistent makes it easier to understand and lessens
> > the risk of strange interactions. If everything is a process and obeys
<snip>
> > That's about it for the first go. I will willingly debate any of my
> > comments on the erlang, but don't expect me to change my mind. Being, as
> > I am, right.
> >
> > Robert