[erlang-questions] If you are homesick for object.selector
Thu Jan 24 21:33:45 CET 2013
It wasn't originally about chainability, was it.
I'd support that one won't usually have deep chains, except when trying things, scripting, also in games. It would indicate something is off.
So the chaining is one thing, but that verbosity, I think it is played down too nonchalantly. It does make programming harder. It would be a serious win to overcome that. I can only suspect that one doesn't see it that much anymore once you are fully used to it but I am positive it would benefit everybody.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Fred Hebert <mononcqc@REDACTED> wrote:
> I'm not making a judgement call on any of it, whether it's worth it or
> not or something to aim for, at least not in that post.
> It just striked me as somewhat peculiar to ask to change the
> associativity of one of the most basic operators of a language to be
> able to get something that looks different/shorter to call functions
> around following countless arguments on the same topic in the last few
> I don't know why making calls chainable that way is *that* desirable, as
> I tend to prefer unambiguous (even if verbose) code to optimized code
> throughput on a per-character basis, but Evan Miller certainly desires
> it a whole damn lot. He's got to make that square peg fit real hard :)
> On 01/24, Max Lapshin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Fred Hebert <mononcqc@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> On 01/24, Evan Miller wrote:
>>>> Cost = Character:weapon():ability():cost()
>>>> While laughing maniacally and dancing around a burning pyre of Prolog
>>> I can't help myself thinking you're one of the most dedicated people
>>> working on making the square peg fit the seemingly round hole on this
>>> mailing list :)
>> Evan develops one of the most developed and most widely used ORM on Erlang,
>> so you have to admit that he definitely has success in this complicated
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions