5 ms·
I was deeply disappointed with the syntax… there are so many compromises because of underlying semantics that the ‘rubyish’ layer on top is very clunky. It doe
by rue 11y ago
I was deeply disappointed with the syntax… there are so many compromises because of underlying semantics that the ‘rubyish’ layer on top is very clunky.
It does cut down on a lot of Erlang boilerplate, so it’s still a better option… but I’m hoping someone will give it a third try.
- jtwebman 11y agoThey are making it better everyday though.
- e_proxus 11y agoTotally agree. What they have improved on is a nice macro system, and a coherent (so far) standard library. Both, which Erlang lacks. The syntax itself is slightly disappointing though. Optional parentheses around argument calls doesn't really add much except confusion, and the extra cruft around blocks and functions make things like pattern matching quite a bit clunkier.