4 ms·

Erlang's syntax is so simple I've been able to read the source code of RabbitMQ before even knowing the language. Quickly going through https://learnyousomeerl

by linkdd 5y ago

Erlang's syntax is so simple I've been able to read the source code of RabbitMQ before even knowing the language. Quickly going through https://learnyousomeerlang.com/ https://learnyousomeerlang.com/ to discover OTP, processes and supervisor and you're ready to code. After learning Erlang, and writing some basic stuff with it, I discovered Elixir and had nothing to learn except: - "defmodule" instead of "package" - "@callback" / "@behaviour" instead of "callback" / "behaviour" - ":an_atom" instead of "an_atom"

dnautics 5y ago
there are a handful of things that make elixir way more ergonomic. For example, in a really big codebase if you want to zoom to a function definition you just have to search "def/p function_name". Aliasing is very nice, though confusing if you are coming from a language where module names are first class (and not just atoms) like Julia.
- saba2008 5y ago
  In Erlang function definitions are '^function_name' in virtually every case.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Adds a mental step for those of us who do not default to regex searches (there are sometimes good reasons not to)
dqv 5y ago
There are a few more concerning proplists/keyword lists: [{:x, "y"}], [x: "y"], ["x": "y"], and x: "y" are the same thing (if in args). Erlang dictates one syntax for this instead ([{x, <<"y">>}]) (ok you COULD say that technically 'x' works too) The pinning operator x = :x; {^x, y} = {x, "y"} Exceptions are slightly different. There are a few others that made me realize "oh shit I need to learn Erlang first."
- linkdd 5y ago
  My point was that Erlang and Elixir aren't that different. You can totally not use the syntactic sugar for proplists, it will still work the same. Therefore saying "you need to learn 2 languages" isn't correct. It's like saying Javascript/Typescript are 2 different languages. Well yes, but if you're fluent with Javascript, you'll be able to read typescript, and if you're fluent with Typescript, chances are that you are fluent with Javascript too. But I agree that one should learn Erlang first, because most of the documentation about Elixir seems to assume that you already know Erlang/OTP.

by linkdd 5y ago

dnautics 5y ago

there are a handful of things that make elixir way more ergonomic. For example, in a really big codebase if you want to zoom to a function definition you just have to search "def/p function_name". Aliasing is very nice, though confusing if you are coming from a language where module names are first class (and not just atoms) like Julia.

saba2008 5y ago
In Erlang function definitions are '^function_name' in virtually every case.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Adds a mental step for those of us who do not default to regex searches (there are sometimes good reasons not to)

dqv 5y ago

There are a few more concerning proplists/keyword lists: [{:x, "y"}], [x: "y"], ["x": "y"], and x: "y" are the same thing (if in args). Erlang dictates one syntax for this instead ([{x, <<"y">>}]) (ok you COULD say that technically 'x' works too) The pinning operator x = :x; {^x, y} = {x, "y"} Exceptions are slightly different. There are a few others that made me realize "oh shit I need to learn Erlang first."

linkdd 5y ago
My point was that Erlang and Elixir aren't that different. You can totally not use the syntactic sugar for proplists, it will still work the same. Therefore saying "you need to learn 2 languages" isn't correct. It's like saying Javascript/Typescript are 2 different languages. Well yes, but if you're fluent with Javascript, you'll be able to read typescript, and if you're fluent with Typescript, chances are that you are fluent with Javascript too. But I agree that one should learn Erlang first, because most of the documentation about Elixir seems to assume that you already know Erlang/OTP.