3 ms·
maybe it's just me. I can read and write erlang, but I still think it's harder to read. It's got a lot of baggage behind it (like <<"this monstrosity for bina
by dnautics 6y ago
maybe it's just me. I can read and write erlang, but I still think it's harder to read. It's got a lot of baggage behind it (like <<"this monstrosity for binaries">>); map syntax is atrocious, and lexical substitution should probably be considered to be an mistake this day in age.
- baby 6y agoI've reviewed erlang apps and I found them surprisingly easy to read, like really really clear. Perhaps it was the developers who did a good job, but I suspect it is the language. Sure some of the syntax is not super pretty, but I'd bet you would get used to it if you programmed in erlang more frequently.
- dnautics 6y agoI can't believe it's a good job: most of what I read in erlang is the OTP source. There are some real stinkers in there, in modules that barely anyone uses anymore (so there aren't any bug reports), like tftp (but when you need it you need it). And if you've ever tried chasing the ssl code, there's definitely some java-esque factory patterns hiding in there where one module or another drops an interface back to its caller, and the call stack weaves several times between two or three modules even.