4 ms·
> Erlang has this sort of huge cognitive overload with it's syntax, making it take longer to learn, for no obvious benefits. That's just weird. How much of an
by biokoda 10y ago
> Erlang has this sort of huge cognitive overload with it's syntax, making it take longer to learn, for no obvious benefits.
That's just weird. How much of an effort did you even put into it? Erlang may have ugly syntax but it's the simplest syntax of all popular languages and the cognitive load while writing is pretty much the lowest I've come across. The language itself is tiny. Or did yo mean you weren't used to a functional language and that was the cognitive overload?
- shakna 10y agoI use Scheme extensively, which I would argue has the least syntax of the functional languages. Erlang seems simple on the surface, but each type seems to have it's own DSL, allowing things that seem the same, to not be, which means you have to hold more context in your head. e.g. Are these two the same? ensure(A, B) -> if A == B -> Does -> always mean function? Or does it mean something similar to progn or begin from CL and Scheme? Or does it vary with context? I had issues teaching where to use ; or . or end, and having people actually comprehend the reasons enough to do it without thinking. At least with Scheme it's always ) We also investigated using Elixir, which has less overhead, and more people find easier to get up and running with. However, at the time Mix wasn't stable yet, which counted it out.
- biokoda 10y agoI think you mistook a barrier to entry (getting over the syntax) for a permanent cognitive load. At our company we don't care if you know erlang or not, but we expect a developer to learn it on the job and have had no issues either with junior or experienced developers. All who've tried it are amazed at the productivity.