[erlang-questions] Must and May convention
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