[erlang-questions] Erlang Syntax - again
Wed Mar 12 01:58:38 CET 2008
Very few of the misfeatures of Erlang syntax are new, though this doesn't
make them less important. Some are be fixable.
I was probably a little unclear but I was interested in the question of a
whole new syntax, which at least Ulf understood. And the follow-up question
of whether this would satisfy people?
For example assume we did a new flavour of Erlang based on Java which had
the look of Java but still had Erlang semantics (it couldn't be otherwise).
Would this make new users who came from more traditional languages happy? Or
would it just make it worse in that it might look the same as what they are
used to (sort of) but there would still be no "real" assignments or
destructive operations or loops etc ?
I suppose the question really gets back to where the *real* problem is. Is
it really the syntax, or is it actually the semantics but people see it a
syntax problem because that is what they see first, the syntax? If a new
syntax really solved new users problems then it might be worth doing,
otherwise not. What do people think?
One benefit on basing a new syntax on a typed language would be that adding
(optional) type declarations would still look "right". Typing records just
looks weird to me. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions