3 ms·

If your code ends up littered with Var2 = Var1 + 1 type "idioms", then you are probably doing it wrong. I hardly ever write code like that (or see other's Erlan

If your code ends up littered with Var2 = Var1 + 1 type "idioms", then you are probably doing it wrong. I hardly ever write code like that (or see other's Erlang code like that). It's by no means an idiom.

KevinMS 17y ago
From programming erlang by Joe Armstrong: At this point you might be wondering how it’s possible to program with- out variables. How can you express something like X = X + 1 in Erlang? The answer is easy. Invent a new variable whose name hasn’t been used before (say X1), and write X1 = X + 1. X=#todo{}. X1 = #todo{status=urgent, text="Fix errata in book"}. X2 = X1#todo{status=done}. From Armstrongs thesis X = 5; X1 = X + 10; I found those just by searching on "X1". There are more X1 examples in the erlang otp sources. Who knows what else is in there.
- iamaleksey 17y ago
  I'm not saying this never happens. It does, but you'll rarely see this pattern in any real Erlang code base. And when you see it, it will not be "littered". It's an exception, not an idiom. And those samples from Joe's book and thesis are just snippets with no context. BTW, O'Reilly's "Erlang Programming" doesn't even provide such an example. Edit: One example when I do use this pattern is constructing proplists for some function calls.
  - silentbicycle 17y ago
    Erlang's style was very strongly influenced by Prolog, and in Prolog code, it's quite common to see e.g. "X1 = X + 1", but having X2, X3, etc. as well is rare - there's usually not a succession of modified versions of a variable in the same function (clause), because it's a sign that you could break things up better. The same is true in Erlang - code with several such variables is written with a strong Java accent (or whatever), not in idiomatic Erlang.
artsrc 17y ago
You can say the same thing another way. If your code is littered with V2 = V1 + 1 "idioms", then you are coding in a way not well supported by Erlang. Or, rebinding variables is generally not the clearest way to express the intent of your calculation. Abstractions like fold are more pure descriptions of the desired calculation. I do agree with the consensus that the clojure recur, expresses something about intent that is missing from Erlang. I enjoy functional depictions of algorithms, but there are many programmers who are currently more comfortable with imperative code.

KevinMS 17y ago

From programming erlang by Joe Armstrong: At this point you might be wondering how it’s possible to program with- out variables. How can you express something like X = X + 1 in Erlang? The answer is easy. Invent a new variable whose name hasn’t been used before (say X1), and write X1 = X + 1. X=#todo{}. X1 = #todo{status=urgent, text="Fix errata in book"}. X2 = X1#todo{status=done}. From Armstrongs thesis X = 5; X1 = X + 10; I found those just by searching on "X1". There are more X1 examples in the erlang otp sources. Who knows what else is in there.

iamaleksey 17y ago
I'm not saying this never happens. It does, but you'll rarely see this pattern in any real Erlang code base. And when you see it, it will not be "littered". It's an exception, not an idiom. And those samples from Joe's book and thesis are just snippets with no context. BTW, O'Reilly's "Erlang Programming" doesn't even provide such an example. Edit: One example when I do use this pattern is constructing proplists for some function calls.
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  Erlang's style was very strongly influenced by Prolog, and in Prolog code, it's quite common to see e.g. "X1 = X + 1", but having X2, X3, etc. as well is rare - there's usually not a succession of modified versions of a variable in the same function (clause), because it's a sign that you could break things up better. The same is true in Erlang - code with several such variables is written with a strong Java accent (or whatever), not in idiomatic Erlang.

artsrc 17y ago

You can say the same thing another way. If your code is littered with V2 = V1 + 1 "idioms", then you are coding in a way not well supported by Erlang. Or, rebinding variables is generally not the clearest way to express the intent of your calculation. Abstractions like fold are more pure descriptions of the desired calculation. I do agree with the consensus that the clojure recur, expresses something about intent that is missing from Erlang. I enjoy functional depictions of algorithms, but there are many programmers who are currently more comfortable with imperative code.