[erlang-questions] Erlang 3000?

Robert Virding rvirding@REDACTED
Sun Nov 16 03:46:34 CET 2008

2008/11/16 Kevin Scaldeferri <kevin@REDACTED>

> Quite honestly, I would say that the situation is worse in Erlang than
> most dynamically typed languages, because of:
> a) the existence of symbols,
> b) the lack of a canonical undef or nil object, and
> c) to a lesser degree, the strangeness of the if statement

I don't understand your reasons at all:

Why do you want/need an undef or nil object in language where everything has
a value? And where you have immutable data?

Many complain about the if *expression* but I don't really understand why it
warrants so much interest. I personally find that I don't use it much
anyway, and that because I don't *need* to use it. I find that having
pattern matching has changed my style of coding. I just checked my code for
LFE and I found that where I most use a "tradional" if is is my checker
module where I only check and don't produce anything.

I honesty don't see how this can make it difficult to write libraries. I
have written quite a few and that was not the problem in writing them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20081116/3315345f/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list