[Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055

Michael Malter airlangue@REDACTED
Mon Apr 25 17:27:04 CEST 2022

Well I would rather let Joe rest in peace but the reference is probably
helpful there.

Erlang is simple. I mean, that's how Joe saw it. He expressed it multiple

Do you remember the time when that was the Java motto ? Look at Java now.

Is it so hard to understand what we are saying ? For once it's pretty clear
and without many diverging opinions.

- it's not sufficiently useful to warrant another language features (you
know, less is more)
- it's yet another sigil and we hate them.

Le lun. 25 avr. 2022 à 17:14, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@REDACTED> a
écrit :

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:58 AM Stanislav Ledenev <s.ledenev@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>> One question - why? Just because we can?
>> Erlang is doomed, Sorry Joe, we f**d things up.
> I really can’t help but laugh at over the top reactions like this and
> those who can’t help but bash Elixir because they don’t like the syntax.
> What if this syntax (or some other syntax) helps the compiler generate
> better (safer, faster, *whatever*) code? How would anyone know unless it
> gets tried? Why would anyone want to try it when they know that a certain
> vocal subset of the community are going to be pitching embarrassing fits
> over it?
> If this is introduced in OTP 26, then stop upgrading. Seriously. Stay on
> OTP 25 or before. But seriously, stop acting like children about this and
> saying that things are fucked up (because they’re not; you just don’t like
> this because you don’t like it). The only *real* objection that I’ve seen
> that makes sense to me is from Loïc, which is that it might be better to
> enable *annotations*, even if the only annotation initially available is
> for pinning. (My personal feeling on the annotation concept is that `^pin
> Variable` doesn’t feel right to me, but maybe `^pin:Variable` or
> `^pin{Variable}` or `^{pin}Variable` or something else, although more
> sigil-y, would be clearer.
> I mostly use Elixir, but often read Erlang codebases. On the Elixir core
> mailing list, there are frequent redirects to approach something as a
> possible PR to Erlang/OTP because it’s something that should benefit all
> BEAM languages.
> Telemetry started as an Elixir library, but was quickly changed to a pure
> Erlang approach because it makes more sense to be something that all BEAM
> languages can use.
> Elixir has — and I suspect both LFE and Gleam both have — *enhanced *the
> BEAM through wider exposure, code contributions, and other contributions.
> If you can’t argue a feature request like in this EEP on its merits (or
> lack thereof) without trying to bash Elixir, then maybe you don’t actually
> have an argument, but an emotional outburst, and should just *discard* your
> rant after writing it.
> -a
> --
> Austin Ziegler • halostatue@REDACTEDaustin@REDACTED
> http://www.halostatue.ca/http://twitter.com/halostatue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20220425/5172765c/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list