[Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055

[Michael Malter]

I said it for years. Elixir is cutting the branch it is sitting on.

Oh well, we will be fine for quite a few years.

I haven't read the whole thing, it is quite difficult to digest but I am
not sure anyone mentioned that sigils are hard to read. It's bad in ruby,
horrible in perl. I am not sure why we are taking ideas from these
languages. I mean, I actually enjoy writing ruby but just fail to see where
it stands in a prology context.


Little funny story on the side. I go to a local erlang meetup, the topic of
the day is "Discovering erlang" or something similar. An organizer
litteraly shouted on me just for mentionning erlang. The whole thing
revolved around selling elixir products. I'll let you imagine the
atmosphere in the room, full of begginers. One (courageous ? ) guy left on
the spot.

We all wished the coexistence would be peaceful and productive. It
certainly was for the most part. But let's face it we are more and more
dealing with monkey crusaders. Consultants also. If I have an economic
incentive to tell you that making a pabx in fortran is great, I'll just
tell you that.

This proposal reeks of "Erlang does not look like what I am used to, so
let's make it user friendly".

Le lun. 25 avr. 2022 à 07:41, Eric Pailleau <eric.pailleau@REDACTED> a
écrit :

> Yes, this 'pinning operator' will just pin erlang in the extinct species
> museum.
>
> Envoyé depuis mon mobile
>
>
> ---- zxq9 a écrit ----
>
> From the EEP, which is about "pinning operators" (will the nonsense
>
> cease?):
>
> > In Erlang, they would be optional
>
>
>
> So why would you even want this? The entire idea is stupid, *implies* a
>
> break with the basic rules already built into the language, and appears
>
> to be nothing more than a way to roadmap the destruction of Erlang over
>
> time with gee-whiz glyphy syntax of the sort which Erlang has been thus
>
> far generally free.
>
>
>
> That's a big "NO" from me on this EEP, but I imagine anyone could have
>
> already guessed that. Thanks for the heads up. I don't expect sanity to
>
> prevail over time -- it is just the trend of the times -- but it was
>
> interesting to at least see this mentioned to those of us still
>
> subscribed to the bad dirty old ML.
>
>
>
> -Craig
>
>
>
> On 2022/04/21 21:32, Leonard Boyce wrote:
>
> > I'm copying the Erlang Questions ML with this post since there was
>
> > significant and heated discussion regarding this EEP and not all ML
>
> > subscribers have joined the forum.
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:20 PM Bryan Paxton via Erlang Forums
>
> > <noreply@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> starbelly EEF Board
>
> >> April 21
>
> >>
>
> >> EEP-0055 (https://github.com/erlang/eep/blob/master/eeps/eep-0055.md)
> was submitted on
>
> >> 21-Dec-2020.
>
> >>
>
> >> An accompanying implementation (https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2951)
> was submitted in which a lot of conversation ensued.
>
> >>
>
> >> It was decided that the EEP would not be set for inclusion in OTP-24,
> per the time table at that juncture and that it would be revisited prior to
> OTP-25. OTP-25 is now at a point where this is not possible.
>
> >>
>
> >> That said, I wanted to start a topic here about the EEP and gun for
> inclusion in OTP-26.
>
> >>
>
> >> I would point to @kennethL’s last comment (
> https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2951#issuecomment-770878570) on the PR
> as a starting point for discussion.
>
> >>
>
> >> I suppose my overarching question here is : Is this still on the table?
> And if so, what are the road blocks? Kenneth pointed out some possible
> roadblacks that needed investigation, but it’s not clear to me what
> happened after that.
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course, since I’m raising this topic, I’m obviously in favor of the
> operator I’d also be happy to work to drive it forward.
>
> >>
>
> >> ________________________________
>
> >>
>
> >> Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
>
> >>
>
> >> You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
>
> >>
>
> >> To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20220425/fe7d51e5/attachment.htm>