[erlang-questions] The compiler "eats" structures which are not separated by commas

[Michael Turner]

> I guess contrary to ROK you are the
> simple minded type and not able to
> dwell into arguments. Tip: If you
> don't have something to say and feel
> that void in your brain, step back
> from the keyboard.
>
> Bye

I actually do have something to say regarding object-orientation in
Erlang. But I already said it:

  http://erlang.2086793.n4.nabble.com/Erlang-quot-object-oriented-quot-after-all-td2101240.html

And Joe Armstrong agreed, rather emphatically, which is about all I
need to hear.

Richard is right: if there's anything corresponding to the concept of
"object" in Erlang, it's "process", not "record." Note my "if".
Processes are well-defined in Erlang. So are records. "Object" never
got a consensus definition in software engineering. Pontificate all
you want on what you consider the essence of object-oriented
programming. You'll always get an objection -- from another OO
pontiff, usually.

Also, so long as we're dwelling on semantics here: in English, "bye",
in the context of a discussion, means, "I'm leaving the discussion."
In heated discussions, it has the added nuance of "... because you're
a waste of time."

And with that ...

Bye.

-michael turner


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jan Burse <janburse@REDACTED> wrote:
> Michael Turner schrieb:
>
>> I hope you don't have any additional words
>> to re-emphasize what you mean by "Bye."
>> -michael turner
>
>