[erlang-questions] Frames proposal

Max Bourinov <>
Tue May 1 16:28:27 CEST 2012

Hi Richard,

Thank you very much for posting your great work!

But the title scared me. "Getting rid of records" - what should I do with
all my code that uses records?

I like the idea of frames a lot. It would significantly simplify my code
and I love this idea.

Best regards,

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM, José Valim <> wrote:

> The implied mapping takes JSON {id: 4135, title: "title2"}
>> to <{id ~ 4135, title ~ <<"title2">>}>.
>> The bounded size of the Erlang atom table is a vulnerability
>> but there is an EEP to address that; that in itself is a much
>> more urgent issue than frames.
> Exactly. In Ruby, for example, since atoms aren't garbage
> collected, converting a JSON from an external source to a hash using atoms
> as keys represents a security vulnerability in a web service, as someone
> could force the "atom table" to fill in completely, so we simply don't.
> So until the atom limitation is fixed, we would be better on handling
> JSONs as a dict or something else.
> I have read the proposal completely and I think everything is well
> explained and defined. Even though I am not a huge fan of the syntax, I
> think it fits Erlang well. One option that I haven't seen considered is
> still using curly brackets as delimiters and use `{~}` to specify an empty
> frame. This would make the common case (a frame with at least one element)
> easier on the eyes by sacrificing a bit the not so common case (empty
> frame). But again, we are in good hands with whatever the Erlang and OTP
> team decide.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120501/cc22232e/attachment.html>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list