[erlang-questions] Erlang Syntax - again
Wed Mar 12 12:34:43 CET 2008
If I really wanted a whole new Java like syntax with Erlang like
semantics I would be coding/promoting/improving Scala.
All I am looking for is consistency within Erlang's constructs. The
rest I can deal with.
2008/3/11 Robert Virding <rvirding@REDACTED>:
> 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. :-)
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions