[erlang-questions] The Beauty of Erlang Syntax

Zvi <>
Thu Feb 26 22:12:49 CET 2009




Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
> 
> If you want to have only one way of doing anything, perhaps you should  
> try Python.  I hear that's one of their design principles.
> 

Kevin, 
I playing a devil advocate here (actualy some company paid me to be a
devil's advocate :)
I can adopt to any syntax and semantics. I already use Erlang and love it. I
just think of it as a low-level language, kinda parallel and distributed
COBOL :) There are some simple things that hard to do in Erlang. That's the
reason, why project like Disco uses combination of Erlang+Python and Fuzed -
Erlang+Ruby. 


Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
> 
> Anyway, the point is, if times() is something you do a lot, just write  
> it and get on with your life.  If it matters to you a lot, make an  
> argument for why it's generally important and submit a patch to the  
> standard libraries.
> 
Obviously you didn't read the list of things hard in Erlang, simple in other
langs. Repeat N times, is just a simplest example. In Jim Larson's

Times, just a case of "for" loop.
I working on generic collections library for Erlang, where will be ranges.
Someting like:

R = gc_range:new(1,10).
gc:foreach(fun(_)->io:format("hi~n") end, R).

Zvi



-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Beauty-of-Erlang-Syntax-tp22179816p22233815.html
Sent from the Erlang Questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list