[erlang-questions] Erlang and syntax.

[Maxim Velesyuk]

For a long time I wonder why erlang syntax is not based on s-expressions?
Did Creators debate on it, if yes, why had prolog-like syntax won?

Often when I feel I need to change ast I remember how clumsy and
uncomfortable parse transform is, so I overcome myself and make workarounds.

But macros are still useful, programmers use parse transform when they have
no other choice, and projects like merl appear.

List and zip comprehensions could be implemented as macros, ets and mnesia
query language is actually prefix-notation language with code quoting, even
pattern matching and so long expected maps could be just a libraries.

Take a look at c++ and java, how they suffer from inventing new syntax.
Hopefully Erlang will not turn in such syntax-monster. It has syntax for
many things, but it still not as flexible as it could be.

This forwards me back to my first question, why?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140222/2e798240/attachment.htm>