Collateral Damage

[Eric Pailleau]

' I don’t have a strong opinion on this EEP, as I don’t generally write Erlang.' 
So why giving an opinion, then? (no offense) 
The counselors are not payers, there. 


Envoyé depuis mon mobile 

---- Austin Ziegler a écrit ----

>On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:03 PM valentin@REDACTED <valentin@REDACTED>
>wrote:
>
>> Dear Austin,
>>
>> To assert that people do not like a particular proposal because “it looks
>> too much like Elixir” is not just unfair, but outright insulting.
>>
>
>How, then is one supposed to take comments as the following (emphases added
>by me):
>
>   - And furthermore in this particular EEP there's this thing I hate more
>   than anything else - turning language X to language Y. Quote - "This is
>   known as "pinning" in Elixir - see the Elixir documentation." *If you
>   like Elixir do your job with Elixir. Why spoil Erlang?* Especially when,
>   quote - "In current Erlang, this behaviour is what happens
>   automatically...".
>   - I said it for years. *Elixir is cutting the branch it is sitting on.*
>   - Retire the entire string-as-list paradigm, use binaries by default (*the
>   one good thing about Elixir*), and at last make everything UTF-8 by
>   default.
>   - Somehow my (sad) feeling is the idea is exactly in destroying the
>   Erlang as we know it. "*No matter how hard we try, we cannot make Elixir
>   more preferable -- at least let us make Erlang *less* preferable.*"
>   - *One question - why? Just because we can? Erlang is doomed, Sorry Joe,
>   we f**d things up.*
>
>This thread is about discussing a proposal for language change and we
>> should try our best to keep our focus on that.
>> Introducing a completely irrelevant (I’d even say imaginary) argument in
>> support of any given position is not helpful at all.
>>
>
>One would be hard pressed to call my characterization of these quotes as
>*imaginary*. These are all from the last ~3 days (and reflect 3–4 different
>posters). The previous discussion about 18 months ago was just as full of
>such hyperbolic inanity. I think that my shorthand of "it looks too much
>like Elixir" as characterizations of these quotes is as positive as one can
>get.
>
>Languages *do* evolve over time. I don’t have a strong opinion on this EEP,
>as I don’t generally write Erlang. I think that there are some solid
>objections to it as written, and at least a couple of counter-proposals
>that should probably be written as EEPs as alternatives to this one (and to
>each other; the two would probably be mutually exclusive). I even agree
>that "oh, ghu, *another* sigil" is a legitimate objection (there’s some
>recent syntax added to Ruby that I’m ambivalent to negative about). But any
>objection which includes fears of Erlang becoming not Erlang or slights
>against another programming language for *reasons *can and should probably
>be dismissed from the discussion for being hyperbolic and unproductive. It
>indicates that the posters don’t have any trust in the Erlang core
>development team, and are likely pining for a time / world that never
>actually existed.
>
>Broadly, this would be the difference between conservationism and
>conservatism. The former is good. The latter leads to stagnation,
>irrelevance, and regression.
>
>-a
>-- 
>Austin Ziegler • halostatue@REDACTED • austin@REDACTED
>http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20220425/9b6b197e/attachment.htm>