[erlang-questions] The Beauty of Erlang Syntax
Tue Feb 24 23:10:56 CET 2009
On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Christian wrote:
> In a way, the research that lead to Erlang was about finding a way to
> making it faster to have low-skilled developers cranking out new
> features. It certainly wouldnt be good PR if Erlang was a language for
> highly-skilled developers to slowly cranking out old features.
I wasn't in the industry at the time, but I'm not sure that the
programming workforce of the 80's closely resembled the workforce of
today (or the past decade).
But, really, one should ask, if Erlang was designed / evolved /
selected with this goal, why is it that 20 years later most developers
have never even heard of it? I guess one possibility would be to
blame Ericsson and credit MS and Sun for why C# and Java are the
languages of choice for companies who care more about how easy it is
to hire an army of developers than anything else. There could be
other possible explanations, though.
Also, you've exaggerated & distorted my point with your last
sentence. Haskell unabashedly markets itself as a language for highly
skilled developers to quickly and reliably implement new features. It
is still unpopular. Most companies do not like the idea of using a
language that requires them to find a top 10% or top 1% developer to
work on their project.
Of course, you might also have misinterpreted my comment entirely.
I'm certainly not promoting this point of view, but just saying that
to a lot of companies "practical for the real world" means "I can
easily hire someone".
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 18:14, Kevin Scaldeferri <kevin@REDACTED
>> > wrote:
>> It's kinda funny how often people think of things like reliability,
>> high-availability, etc. as "academic" concerns. An awful lot of
>> companies care primarily about how fast low-skilled developers can
>> crank out new features.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions