[erlang-questions] Ideas for a new Erlang

Bob Calco <>
Mon Jun 30 06:09:37 CEST 2008


> So we have a thesis, and an antithesis, and it's time to look for the
> synthesis.  

That's way too Hegelian for me at this time of night.. er, morning! (12:09
AM EST)

I once doubted my political philosophy background would come in handy one
day. Whoddathunk it'd be today, on this subject, in this forum?

:)

- Bob

Clearly, whether 'receive' is easy or hard to understand
> could depend on and presumably does depend on some factors such as
>   - one's willingness to read the documentation
>   - one's ability to read the documentation
>   - one's experience with other notations such as CSP, Ada, Occam,
>     TTCN-3 (where 'receive' can do some limited pattern matching,
>     which when combined with 'alt' gives you a 'selective receive'
>     that I will admit to be tricky), &c
>   - whether one learned Erlang from a book or from a course,
>   - in the latter case, whether the teacher understood 'receive'
>     him/herself
>   - and whether the teacher TAUGHT the students that 'receive' was
>     difficult, the way many people teach that recursion is difficult,
>     and many school maths teachers teach that "maths is too hard"
>   - whether one has used profiling tools that report match attempts
>     in receives, as well as match successes (_are_ there such tools?)
> 
> The only evidence I have to help me decide here is that the
> information is not just there in the documentation, it's lying right
> on the surface, very hard to miss.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list