[erlang-questions] Re: erlang improvement - objective c (or smalltalk) syntax

Raoul Duke raould@REDACTED
Fri Jun 5 01:08:40 CEST 2009

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@REDACTED> wrote:

mostly +1 re: all of what what Mr. Davis said.

i believe there are many usability issues / use cases involved here,
and they are not 100% in alignment; there will never be a perfect

the current java+ide situation isn't so bad compared to the other
options. i do think that long-term maintenance + readability improves
with named parameters, but i do not like the idea of having to type
them in all the time when developing!

(it is perhaps like how i feel about type inference in ML/Haskell -- i
would dearly like the system to insert the inferred types into my code
as i go along. i don't want to have to type it in myself, but i also
want it to be explicit so i can see what is happening as i go along.)


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list