[erlang-questions] The quest for the perfect programming language for massive concurrency.
Mon Feb 3 09:26:18 CET 2014
These are opinions, not facts.
The benefits of Make are mentioned below. Here is a look at a drawback:
(Recursive Make Considered Harmful)
On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 21:56 +0200, Zachary Kessin wrote:
> > 1. The tools are, well frankly, garbage. Sorry, in 2014 to be
> > pushed back to coding with VIM and makefiles is primitive.
> > Rebar is crytptic and just the pet project of a guy on GIT.
> > Compared to Gradle, Maven and even (though I don't care for
> > it much) SBT, rebar is ... lacking. I want to spend time
> > working on my business logic, not fighting tools. There are
> > plugins for eclipse and intellij but they have minimal
> > functionality and i keep reverting back to vim.
> Actually the tools are quite good, you are just looking at the wrong
> set of tools. Yes Make in one form or another has been around forever
> (1977) but to my mind that means that it actually does the job well,
> and has had all the weird bugs found and pushed out years ago. It is
> quite good at doing the minimal amount of work that is required at any
> given time and will use as many cores as you have around. Rebar has a
> few weird issues but is generally pretty good.
> Most of the hard core Erlang folks seem to use Emacs and many of the
> tools are setup to work there.
> That being said there are a group of tools that you probably haven't
> even looked at that are quite powerful and are worth your time, these
> include Dialyzer, Wrangler, PropEr or QuickCheck, and Concuerror.
> If you define tools to be a fancy IDE then Erlang is lacking, but if
> you define tools as stuff that helps you ship code then Erlang has
> some amazing tools.
> Zachary Kessin
> Mostly Erlang Podcast
> Skype: zachkessin
> Twitter: @zkessin
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions