"Ant turd tokens", or .,; are a big pain in the neck when refactoring stuff. For instance
case Something of
{ok, Val} ->
do_something();
_Error ->
barf()
end,
[ fun(N) -> N + 1 end || N <- [1,2] ]
That will produce a list of 2 funs. I think you meant:
[ N + 1 || N <- [1,2] ].I picked that as a simple example. Yes, I suppose I should have used a fold, or any of the other "everything else" functions that don't have syntax support. My point still stands.
Comparing Haskell and Erlang syntax isn't even fair. Haskell threw homoiconicity and homogeneity way out the window in exchange for some very nice, mathematical notation.
Erlang is hardly homoiconic, unless you mean Lisp-Flavoured Erlang.
It's just practice. It no longer trips me up, but I still find it klunky and unpleasant after nigh on 6 years of medium-duty usage.
vs. Augh. Yes, I'm cheating perhaps a bit with the (+1), but Erlang syntax has enough other stuff in the way for it to still be fair in the end. For instance, the example Joe gave, where you end up with this long sequence of