[erlang-questions] Erlang Syntax and "Patterns" (Again)

Steve Davis <>
Thu Mar 17 01:31:43 CET 2016

I do believe that Erlang’s syntax is concise and beautiful. You can’t deny the power of the bit syntax, right?

Also, how else do you express ideas in maybe 1/3 of the lines you’d need in any imperative language.

I do have an issue that “strings are just lists of integers” was maybe a wrong path that led to many criticisms. Pattern matching a decode from a binary message is simplified greatly were “strings” defined to be binaries not lists (as I have spoken on before).

I do think maps are really handy (although slightly clumsy), and suspect that frames as proposed by ROK may have been more powerful.

I do believe that Garrett has a great handle on appropriate decomposition and maintainabllity.

Elixir is great to get Ruby-type ppl on board, but I wish they’d write their libraries in Erlang! Maybe one day they’ll “see the light”.

I wish I was able to provide real solutions to any critique above; but they are trivial compared to the power of the platform, because (as we all know) beyond the syntax wrangles there’s OTP and truly outrageous practical applicability enabled by BEAM.

…OK - got a few things off my chest.

Fair assessment?


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list