[erlang-questions] Erlang basic doubts about String, message passing and context switching overhead

Oliver Korpilla <>
Sat Jan 14 18:25:35 CET 2017


Hello,

to be fair, the Polish special "ł" is easy to miss for everybody not versed with the language when doing a visual scan. ;) Which is kind of the point of lots of Unicode code points.

But as John Doe pointed out, this is indeed what this is about. It actually Unicode-aware in its conversions which I think is also shown in the examples.

Cheers,
Oliver 

Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Januar 2017 um 18:08 Uhr
Von: "John Doe" <>
An: Kein Empfänger
Cc: "Erlang Questions" <>
Betreff: Re: [erlang-questions] Erlang basic doubts about String, message passing and context switching overhead

>string:to_upper("hello").
 
This function works for ASCII only. That's the problem. MICHAł = string:to_upper("Michał").
 
2017-01-14 19:36 GMT+03:00 Garrett Smith <[mailto:]>:On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Michał Muskała <[mailto:]> wrote:
> I fully agree there are no languages that deal with strings perfectly. That
> said there are those that are better at it and those that aren't so good. A
> language, where I need to look for a library to upcase or downcase my own
> name, fits into the second group in my book.

If you're talking about this:

> "hello".upcase()
"HELLO"

vs:

> string:to_upper("hello").
"HELLO"

I would be tempted to rephrase "Erlang is not good for ..." with
"Erlang is not what I am used to for ..."

Some languages invest tremendous effort in programmer convenience and
fit and finish. I think this is terrific! It's one of the major
appeals of Elixir vis-a-vis Erlang and has inspired a huge influx of
creativity and contributions within that ecosystem.

However, when it comes to the merits of a language (and it's
libraries, runtime environments, etc.) there are trade offs
*everywhere* and some of these conveniences come at a high cost. I
don't think "good" and "bad" are nearly specific enough to help inform
our decisions about language adoption.

Now the following is *my very personal opinion* and I'm not grinding
any ax here, extremely happy to live and let live, but this: I don't
particularly find writing function(Arg) (as opposed to Arg.function)
hard, at all - and I *certainly* don't want to pay *any* price in
terms of added complexity or performance degradation for object
oriented ish semantics or features. That's me though. I know a lot of
people really like their language features and thank goodness we have
options!

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[mailto:]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions_______________________________________________ erlang-questions mailing list  http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions[http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions]


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list