Richard A. O'Keefe
Wed May 15 00:55:39 CEST 2013
On 14/05/2013, at 11:15 PM, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
>> Single mechanism. ONE thing to understand.
>> Proven technology: people using other languages with this approach
>> don't seem to have any problem.
> You don't say what language though, so I'm assuming it's obscure languages and the technology has only been proven with a small population, probably mostly academic.
Stop making assumptions. I want the EEP to have my name on it, but the
approach is used in a language which has enough users that new books about
it or based on it keep rolling off the presses (much faster than Erlang
books appear) and for which there are millions of lines of maintained code
in the public repositories (dwarfing Erlang).
> If there is a fool proof solution I'm all for it, but I can't really envision a readable universal syntax for something like this. (And this is the part where you say that nobody needs syntax, they only need functions, I assume.)
Stop making assumptions. Except perhaps for the spelling of a particular
operator, the syntax is familiar to every programmer, including you.
There are details that have to be spelled out clearly, and I'm very busy at
the moment, which is why the EEP isn't ready yet.
(Actually, the basic idea has been used in four different languages that I've
used. Great artists steal. (:-))
More information about the erlang-questions