[erlang-questions] Was Re: Bug ?! now Erlang comment (LONG LONG)
Fri Oct 20 23:12:03 CEST 2006
I would like to comment this:
Erlang as a language has flaws, but I think that is the case with most
languages. I don't agree that this is the major problem that stops
Erlang from beeing more successful.
I also think that one of the major strenghts with Erlang is the
backward compatibility both on the language level, the libraries and
on the .beam format level.
This is beneficial for most users not only Ericsson.
I am not strongly against an evolution of the language or to design a
new language which keeps all the strengths of Erlang of today and
removes the flaws. I don't know how that language should look like to
become a great success perhaps it should have a syntax very similar
the token and operator syntax level I mean)
But I still think it is best to continue the slow path with an
evolution or the current language, keeping backward compatibility as
much as possible. There are other things which are more important than
to drastically change the language.
Improvements in the Erlang VM, Standalone Erlang, A good GUI binding,
SMP support, ...
/Kenneth (Responsible for the Erlang team at Ericsson)
On 10/19/06, Michael Leonhard <> wrote:
> 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 Leonhard
> On 10/17/06, Robert Virding <> wrote:
> > > 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 +):
> > > 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:
> > > Having everything consistent makes it easier to understand and lessens
> > > the risk of strange interactions. If everything is a process and obeys
> > > 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
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions