[erlang-questions] Erlang Syntax - again
Mon Mar 10 23:58:30 CET 2008
On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Robert Virding wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have read Damien's post and Yariv's reply. My question is: they
> say what they don't want, but what do they actually want? I mean
> this question seriously. Perhaps someone who is new to the language
> could answer and tell what they found most difficult when learning
> the syntax. I have spoken Erlang so long that I see it as natural,
> warts and all.
"if" is very unintuitive. As best as I can remember, everything else
was a minor annoyance at worst. I certainly wouldn't complain if
lambda functions and records were less verbose, but they weren't
_difficult_ to learn the syntax.
> Even records look like they do for a specific reason and it is
> harder than you would think to change them. Other Erlang features
> force issues.
> Getting back. What do people want? Do they want something that looks
> like Java, or C++, or Python, or Perl, or ... ? This is actually
> possible to do, BUT (there is always a but) you would not have the
> Java or C++ or Python or ... semantics, you would still have Erlang
> semantics. Would we then get complaints that while it looks like
> Java it doesn't behave like Java, and why not?
Personally, I would like it if functional programming were better
supported and less verbose. (i.e., function composition, lambda
functions, currying and partial application, etc). user-defined infix
operators might also be nice.
More information about the erlang-questions