[erlang-questions] Erlang and syntax.

[Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya]

An edge case does not necessarily negate an entire philosophy.
e.g. "I dont' steal from others" ++ "Yup, that book of Post-Its came from
my Office"

Cheers


On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> wrote:

>
> On 22 Feb 2014 12:43, "Anthony Ramine" <n.oxyde@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> > Erlang is made to be boring. Boring means that it needs to be brain dead
> easy to comprehend. Brain dead easy means no macros.
>
> Sorry, but -define () macros can be just as confusing as lispy ones... I
> would gladly trade them away.
>
> /Vlad
>
> > Given the premise of the absence of macros, why should the language use
> S-expressions and be homoiconic?
> >
> > Why do you need to change the AST? That sounds like a constructed need
> from a bored developer looking for a problem. If you want better parse
> transforms, help me finish brackets for 19.0.
> >
> >         https://github.com/nox/otp/commit/brackets
> >
> > I don't see how could you compare C++ and Java to Erlang, certainly not
> on the front of syntax. Erlang is a tiny language.
> >
> > So to get back to the first question: because macros do not promote
> explicitness.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Anthony Ramine
> >
> > Le 22 févr. 2014 à 10:14, Maxim Velesyuk <loz.accs@REDACTED> a écrit :
> >
> > > 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?
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > erlang-questions mailing list
> > > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>


-- 

*Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya
<http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/204a87f81a0d9764c1f3364f53e8facf.png>That
tall bald Indian guy..*
*Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/108074935470209044442/posts>  | Blog
<http://dieswaytoofast.blogspot.com/>   | Twitter
<https://twitter.com/dieswaytoofast>  | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/dieswaytoofast>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140222/14d630be/attachment.htm>