OTP development, was Re: Gaga about bifs

Matthias Lang matthias@REDACTED
Wed Apr 9 16:43:29 CEST 2003

James Hague wrote:
 > 1. integer_to_list and list_to_integer are already bifs.  It's cleaner to
 > have arity two versions with the same names than it is to have completely
 > different functions in different modules.

Could just as well argue that making integer_to_list a BIF was a
mistake and that adding even more BIFs makes the mess even bigger.

 > general improvements, significant and otherwise, seem to have 
 > ground to a halt, or at least be in a state of confusion.  

R9B included native compilation. That's significant by any definition.

It has been more than three years since Erlang went open source and
the OTP group's efforts are still outclassing everyone else. Quietly.

It'd really make my day if someone I've never heard of before turned
up on the mailing list and said "I've implemented an SS7 stack using
the bit syntax, it's available at ftp.wherever.net". I realise that's
unlikely, so I'll settle for falling off my chair the day someone
_starts_ a discussion about altering the language (replacing records,
adding a type checker, reorganising all the libraries) by providing a
prototype implementation of their latest and greatest idea*.


 * This does sometimes happen, e.g. Richard Carlsson's hierarchical modules.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list