[erlang-questions] Must and May convention

zxq9 <>
Thu Sep 28 18:46:59 CEST 2017

On 2017年09月28日 木曜日 12:32:48 Fred Hebert wrote:
> If anything, a "let's put it in Erlang2" approach, based on current 
> evidence, is much more likely to be horrible and difficult (modula-3, 
> python3 or perl6 style) than progressive changes being incorporated into 
> the language on an ongoing basis.

I'm on the fence here. I've been on both sides of Python migration and
don't see the move to Python 3 as uniformly bad -- but it was disruptive.
That's what I was getting at by saying "Erlang2" should be called
something different -- and not actually have anything to do with actual
Erlang as put out by the OTP team, imo.

(On that note, I really like the way LFE has made itself a lightweight

> I'm not going all in for the syntax changes either; these conversations 
> are necessary and it's a good thing to be having them.
> But I think you're missing the forest from the trees if you don't think 
> the experimenting in other languages is not already going full steam 
> ahead. The question I'm asking is whether it would be time to source the 
> work of other places yet, if there's a form of it that has so far shown 
> itself to be adequate. The work has been ongoing for years already.

No disagreement here. This is spot on.

We're definitely leaning toward violent agreement -- as usually winds up
being the case. :-)

But, as you have already known for a while, I do tend to beat the Caution
Drum when it comes to diddling with syntax.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list