[erlang-questions] Other functional languages
Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
Thu Mar 13 17:40:11 CET 2008
> In a couple of words, we don't have just to choose among Erlang OR
> imperative programming (C/Java/Python & Co.): we've a lot of choices
> in the field of funtional languages, and a couple of them have some
> nicer syntax and features compared to Erlang.
I agree that Haskell's syntax is very nice, once you've gotten
used to it. The main problem for a beginner, is that it has
so little of the usual cruft, that it's difficult to tell
what's going on. (:
I think it's a bit unfortunate that there isn't more sharing
between Haskell, ML/OCaml and Erlang. Every once in a while,
there has been some talk about developing interop libraries
for going back and forth between the different languages.
Personally, I think it's a cop-out to say that all three
support interfacing to C. It still leaves a lot of work for
the programmer wanting to make use of some good library
written in one of the other languages.
There is the ErlOCaml Google group, which actually has some
code in it:
Then there are the various pet projects offering alternative
syntax on top of the Erlang VM.
These are the various projects I know of:
- lersp which interprets "an approximation of scheme"
- Erlang/Gambit interface (interfacing Erlang from Scheme)
(especially aiming at accessing Mnesia from Scheme, it seems)
- LFE - Lisp for Erlang, obviously
- HaskErl - Haskell to Erlang Core Compiler
(There is also a Perl extension to Haskell, called Haskerl,
predating the above by about 15 years...)
- ETOS - Erlang to Scheme compiler
- Stoe - Scheme to Erlang compiler
- My own hack to allow different syntaxes in the Erlang shell:
(it would be better if there existed a Core Erlang evaluator)
Judging by past attempts, I'd say that interop solutions have a far
better chance of gathering an audience than an X-to-Y compiler.
But whatever stimulates sharing of ideas across communities is
most likely a Good Thing.
More information about the erlang-questions