Mon Jul 16 22:06:10 CEST 2007
On 7/16/07, Jeff Rogers <> wrote:
> Joel Reymont wrote:
> > This is the reason I asked.
> > Think scalable web development for the masses.
> > On top of Erlang.
> Not meaning to discourage any effort here - a JS implementation in
> erlang might be an interesting project and have some uses, and as others
> have pointed out implementing languages is fun - the goal of "... for
> the masses" is misguided. Syntax isn't the problem - if it was, we'd
> all be programming in COBOL. Sure, erlang syntax is a little different,
> but its the programming philosophy that is alot different, and putting a
> Unless you're going to be able to accurately translate idiomatic
> that uses a single process with no message passing, no exception
> handling, no matching, etc., and then it really isn't erlang anymore.
That argument only makes sense if you're talking about writing whole
Syntax is definitely a problem in certain contexts, and embedding a
language in Erlang (one way or another) is an obvious solution to
of little JS interpreters all over the place (e.g. one per HTTP
request) so the imperative nature of how idiomatic JS works isn't
really a big deal. They're all isolated from one another, and you've
got plenty of them.
More information about the erlang-questions