Re:Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
by spamizbad on Monday May 27, 2019 @01:11PM
(#20023636)
Isn't that kind of what Elixir and Clojure did? Neither language is festooned with bells and whistles and both leveraged the Erlang VM and JVM respectively to assist in bootstrapping their ecosystems.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
by verttii on Monday May 27, 2019 @01:40PM
(#20023878)
Actually, Elixir did add the bells and whistles to Erlang, sort of. That is pretty much the whole point of Elixir.
Re:Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
by paublyrne on Monday May 27, 2019 @02:03PM
(#20024063)
I assume OP meant that Elixir is a purposefully small language. It taps into a lot of functionality in Erlang without necessarily re-implementing it. There isn't even a wrapper around the Erlang :sleep function.
Re:Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
by dnautics on Monday May 27, 2019 @02:55PM
(#20024422)
Well to be honest there's a lot of functionality in erlang you should probably forget about (like the :http and :tftp modules).
Not to hate too much on erlang, but I would say that beyond being small, as a pushback to characterizing it as "bells and whistles", Elixir brings to the table "21st century" understanding/opinions on what makes for readable and maintainable code (build packaging, first-class documentation, module organization, file types, strings, map-focused vs struct-focused, sane function parameter ordering). As a result, I can confidently onboard a junior into Elixir (especially if they were in a RoR bootcamp) and have them be productive. I probably wouldn't for erlang.