[erlang-questions] Erlang and the learning curve

Morten Krogh <>
Tue Jan 4 19:26:06 CET 2011


On 1/4/11 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke wrote:
>
> While I understand the sentiment, it is worth pointing out that premature
> optimisation is a bad thing. Most (but not all) of the desire to control
> memory and performance is completely unwarranted and is a waste of time and
> leads to maintenance issues in the future and usually also negates any
> performance work done at the OS or language level.
>

What work at the OS level is being negated?

> If you write in a functional style in C (or Perl or Python or even C++) then
> things are pretty much as you say. But Java, for example, makes this
> unbelievably hard.
>
I will repeat my question. What are the functions that can be reused in 
Erlang but not in imperative languages?
Feel free to use Java instead of C in your examples.
It seems to me that it is completely equivalent. Every time you have an 
Erlang function, there is a corresponding Java function.

Functional languages should have larger libraries then, if these claims 
were true. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Morten.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list