[erlang-questions] The Beauty of Erlang Syntax
Wed Feb 25 00:26:16 CET 2009
The hypothetical question was "Should I use language X to build my
application?", or "Is X a practical / real-world language?". I.e.,
more-or-less the converse of the question we started with of "Is X an
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Valentin Micic wrote:
> If “I can easily hire someone” is an answer, I am not quite sure
> what would be the question, let alone a problem, if any.
> From: erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED [mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED
> ] On Behalf Of Kevin Scaldeferri
> Sent: 25 February 2009 12:11 AM
> To: Christian
> Cc: erlang-questions
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] The Beauty of Erlang Syntax
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Christian wrote:
> In a way, the research that lead to Erlang was about finding a way to
> making it faster to have low-skilled developers cranking out new
> features. It certainly wouldnt be good PR if Erlang was a language for
> highly-skilled developers to slowly cranking out old features.
> I wasn't in the industry at the time, but I'm not sure that the
> programming workforce of the 80's closely resembled the workforce of
> today (or the past decade).
> But, really, one should ask, if Erlang was designed / evolved /
> selected with this goal, why is it that 20 years later most
> developers have never even heard of it? I guess one possibility
> would be to blame Ericsson and credit MS and Sun for why C# and Java
> are the languages of choice for companies who care more about how
> easy it is to hire an army of developers than anything else. There
> could be other possible explanations, though.
> Also, you've exaggerated & distorted my point with your last
> sentence. Haskell unabashedly markets itself as a language for
> highly skilled developers to quickly and reliably implement new
> features. It is still unpopular. Most companies do not like the
> idea of using a language that requires them to find a top 10% or top
> 1% developer to work on their project.
> Of course, you might also have misinterpreted my comment entirely.
> I'm certainly not promoting this point of view, but just saying that
> to a lot of companies "practical for the real world" means "I can
> easily hire someone".
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 18:14, Kevin Scaldeferri <kevin@REDACTED
>>> > wrote:
>>> It's kinda funny how often people think of things like reliability,
>>> high-availability, etc. as "academic" concerns. An awful lot of
>>> companies care primarily about how fast low-skilled developers can
>>> crank out new features.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions