[erlang-questions] Erlang 3000?

[Robert Virding]

2008/11/17 James Hague <james.hague@REDACTED>

> I've proposed all sorts of crackpot extensions to Erlang, but the two
> big things that really matter are:
>
> 1. Reworking the standard libraries: sets vs. ordsets vs. gb_sets,
> file_size is in filelib instead of file, reverse/1 should be
> accessible without importing lists, simple modules are overrun with
> rarely used cruft, separate out the simple ets from the not so simple
> match specification stuff, and so on.


I quite agree with you here. Having inconsistent confusing libraries id
difficult for everyone and is a turn-off for new comers.

2. Some form of lightweight hash table outside of ets.  Ideally this
> would be the replacement for dict/orddict/gb_trees.


Yes, a built-in lightweight form of dictionaries would be nice, especially
if you can match on them. Something like Joe's structs or ROK's frames.
However, I do not really see them as a replacement for the existing tables
as I don't think you can get them both lightweight and able to efficiently
handle large amounts of data. Ets is not always the best alternative for
large tables.

Concerning Kenneth's post I will get to that with a proper comment. He is
right, but also wrong and things do have to be fixed.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20081117/c1746a65/attachment.htm>