[erlang-questions] some language changes

Mike Berrow mberrow1@REDACTED
Wed May 23 16:20:56 CEST 2007

ok wrote:
> On 21 May 2007, at 8:10 pm, Joe Armstrong wrote:
>> 1. What you type in the shell and what you type in a module/escript
>> should be the same
> ... 
> This has never been the case in Smalltalk, and nobody seems to
> notice any problem.  
> ...

I've used Smalltalk and I've been making a living programming in Ruby
for the last 18 months. Now that you point that out, it is one of the
large advantages that Ruby has over Smalltalk w.r.t
experimentation / prototyping / learning curve

> It has never been the case in Prolog. 
> ....
Is Erlang tied to Prolog in this?  If not, why does that matter?

> And that's a really important point.  Joe is suggesting that
> the Erlang shell should be changed to make it easier for beginners
> to shoot themselves in the foot, instead of learning practices that
> will help to keep them out of trouble.  I cannot think that a good idea.

I've found the transparency between the interactive shell and source 
environments in Ruby to be nothing but a huge boost in productivity.
I've never had this "shooting myself in the foot" effect because of it.
If there is something intrinsically different about the Erlang world that
makes it dangerous, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate.

Thanks much,
-- Mike Berrow

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list