[erlang-questions] Potion: was "Erlang for youngsters"

Robert Virding rvirding@REDACTED
Mon Aug 11 20:48:01 CEST 2014

Whoops, this discussion went a bit further than I thought it would.

I know I like implementing languages but the original message should have
been considered as one that was 4 months 8 days too late. :-)

I happen to like the erlang syntax, it IS very simple and consistent and as
Richard says a a big feature of Lua is the system around it and the very
dynamic nature of it. Also it would never be a true Lua as that would not
fit properly on top of erlang. Even apart from mutable data it does things
in a very different way, for example code handling. No, for real Lua on
erlang uses Luerl.

But the Lua syntax is quite simple.

I was just getting on the bandwagon of having another X influenced language
on the BEAM. :-)


On 10 August 2014 17:08, <ok@REDACTED> wrote:

> > We do Potion which is a new language on the BEAM+OTP with a Lua inspired
> > syntax instead. This would have many benefits:
> >
> > - It would make it much easier for a large group of programmers to get
> > into
> > the erlang fold.
> Where is the evidence for this?
> If Luerl didn't achieve it, why would Potion?
> > - The syntax would be simpler that elixir and would avoid some of its
> > idiosyncrasies.
> > - Lua is a fun language to start with.
> Did you ever have the feeling that when you got up in the morning
> you stepped into the wrong parallel universe?
> I've had Lua on my Macs for years.
> About once a year I stumble across it by accident while searching
> for something else, and say "oh YEAH, I forgot about that, time to
> put it to use."  I then download the latest release, re-read the
> manual, wake up, finish re-reading the manual, and when I've
> stopped yawning, go and do something more enjoyable, like marking
> or cleaning the bathroom.
> As far as I can see, the two virtues of Lua are
> (1) Lua the *language* is a small ho-hum language with a
>     small embeddable implementation that you can easily hook
>     into and use as an extension language.  That's presumably
>     why LuaTeX exists.
> (2) Lua the *system* comes with things like luarocks and a
>     useful library of user-contributed extensions like i18n.
>     This is the bit I personally find attractive, or would
>     if I couldn't get the things I want in other languages.
> A language that is only Lua-*like* sacrifices pretty much all
> of (2), which is to say sacrifices most of the reason why I
> would ever consider using Lua for anything.
> Perhaps the most ho-hum aspect of Lua is its heavy dependence
> on mutable state, making error handling the familiar terror it
> was before Erlang.
> It might not be unfair to describe Lua as a small Javascript
> done right and luarocks as npm.  If the same engineering work
> of making Javascript less of a dog had been put into Lua...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140811/88be70d1/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list