Joe Armstrong About Erlang (interview)

Re:Joe Armstrong About Erlang (interview) by fogus on Monday November 29, 2010 @10:12AM (#1950494)

Classic quote:

You've been reading my OOP sucks blogs. I saw a blog yesterday, they said Erlang is actually more object oriented, truer to the spirit of pure object orientation than all object oriented languages. You could take two views: you could say either Erlang isn't object oriented - which I used to say a few years ago - or you could say it's more object oriented than all the object oriented languages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joe Armstrong About Erlang (interview) by davidw on Monday November 29, 2010 @11:06AM (#1950701)

Which is a bit glib though; because, especially if you've got something like OTP, you do a variety of things "underneath" that have nothing to do with sending messages back and forth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joe Armstrong About Erlang (interview) by masklinn on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:04PM (#1951131)

And most OO languages devolve to imperative masses within methods. You could see Erlang as an OO/functional language (similar to OCaml, except asynchronous and dynamically typed) whereas C++, Java or Python are OO/imperative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joe Armstrong About Erlang (interview) by davidw on Monday November 29, 2010 @03:09PM (#1951605)

If you really wanted to see it that way, I think something like Reia might be a more interesting way of capturing it, myself. OTP has too much boilerplate for my tastes.

[ Parent | on HN ]