Erlang/OTP

...

Other urls found in this thread:

quorumlanguage.com/evidence.html
sci-hub.hk/10.1145/2534973
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There already .

Elixir syntax is shit.
Erlang is superior.

The syntax doesn't matter.

Elixir syntax is shit, but Elixir is superior at few places

That's where you are wrong. Keyword based syntax is scientifically been proven to be the best syntax by the Quorum guys.
People who refuse this truth fit into at least one of
a) mentally ill
b) too retarded to learn something new
c) reading cripple
d) writing cripple
>inb4 ableist

Shitpost.

>Elixir syntax is shit, but Elixir is superior at few places
you didn't refute the argument

I know yours is a shitpost. lern2greentext, pleb. Or accept that you fall into one of the four categories.
He didn't make one about syntax in the first place.

>He didn't make one about syntax in the first place.
so why did you quote him?

>Quorum guys
Literally who?
>scientifically been proven
Literally how?
>best syntax
For what purpose?

link?

You can find it yourself.
>Literally who?
The only people looking into it scientifically.
>Literally how?
Studies, the only way to find out. Though I'd say it's an axiom, because keywords have a lexical meaning and everything else is just you getting used to random garbage and falling into one of the four categories.
>For what purpose?
For all purposes. Ever.
Preemptive strikes against his faggotry.

Can't find it anywhere.
I believe my google fu skills are good.
You're full of shit.

>quorumlanguage.com/evidence.html
>In a study of six programming languages using novices, one randomized controlled trial found that accuracy rates for certain C-style languages (Perl, Java) were not significantly higher than a language with randomly generated keywords and symbols, while languages that deviated from this style did (Quorum, Ruby, Python). Statistical procedures called Token Accuracy Mapping now exist that can predict which tokens contribute, positively or negatively, to the overall effect [6].
>[6] is sci-hub.hk/10.1145/2534973
>pic related
much sample
such evidence
very conclusive
wow

If this were a drug study, would you take it? Not to mention, all of this just talks about the ease of learning by programming novices.

>I believe my google fu skills are good.
It's called Dunning Kruger effect, fag.
It's better what you and everyone else delivered, fucking nothing.
Also, it's obvious that this transitions from programming novices to looking up that reference of this scripting shit you occasionally find in other peoples software vs not.
It works the other way, too, btw.

>It's called Dunning Kruger effect
Amazing.

You can't claim that languages intended for professional use would be better with keyword based syntax when the available evidence only shows that languages with that kind of syntax are easier to learn for absolute beginners. It's just not very "scientific" to extrapolate like that.

>it's obvious that this transitions from programming novices
>Studies, the only way to find out.
Make up your mind.

>Make up your mind.
There is nothing to make up my mind about. The one is for scientific work, the other is for things that are clear to people not falling into one of the four categories.
>It's just not very "scientific" to extrapolate like that.
That's because it is obvious. If you associate a similar meaning to something it is easier to learn it's contextual meaning. If not, not.
Like all studies on programming languages this has other flaws, though. Like drawing the wrong conclusion from a specific input. Same with the dynamic vs static typing one, btw.

>Elixir replaced few symbols with keywords
>some shitty "study" shown beginners do less mistakes with keywords
>therefor Elxir syntax MUST be superior and unconditionally not shit

You're just stupid. All the languages in the table are VERY error prone. Compare that to Erlang/Haskell. Haskell/Erlang systems, once they work, they WORK, at 8 am, 5 pm and 2 in the night. Fuck off.

What are you talking about mate, this is about syntax, purely.
There is always the chance that they messed up some keywords. But I'd rather bet on the chance that you are just mad because you are a keyboard cripple who usually says something along "b-but I don't need to learn touch typing, muh C syntax and muh shit tier editor" or some similar scenario.

Don't feed him, you suckers.

It's not like you could, either.

>That's because it is obvious. If you associate a similar meaning to something it is easier to learn it's contextual meaning. If not, not.
That's not the point, the general use-case of a programming language is not learning it and the never using it again, it's actually using it for years upon years to write multiple programs. It's not obvious at all whether it will actually be faster to write or debug code and understand code written by other people in a language with keyword based syntax compared to one with the usual syntax.

I am talking about syntax. Show me any C++ code, the Haskell equivalent is going to be 10 times less in volume, and much more descriptive. Tell me how exactly is that worse?

no my problem is that elixir's syntax is too inconsistent and allows optional omitting of braces around arguments which I'm not a fan of in any way

>That's not the point, the general use-case of a programming language is not learning it and the never using it again, it's actually using it for years upon years to write multiple programs.
You forgot the part where after that you are not looking up your software for a couple of years and then looking at it again. So far, every Perl guy, even the most clean programming has been fucked over by that.
>one shit tier syntax
>another shit tier syntax
How is that even remotely related to anything said before.

Oh well, nvm guys, it's shit then.