
Getting started with Erlang: a new way to look at Erlang's syntax - kansi
https://medium.com/@kansi/getting-started-with-erlang-d6ef711b25db
======
vezzy-fnord
I never understood why Erlang syntax has been so commonly maligned. I had no
trouble getting through Joe Armstrong's _Programming Erlang_ in less than a
week, and the syntax never required any conscious moment to "click," it just
flowed right past. The only exception at first was the operator precedence
rules inherited from Prolog, but those are memorized quickly.

I also didn't have in-depth prior experiences to non-ALGOL languages all that
substantively. I had experimented with Scheme, OCaml and REBOL (and read
documents on Prolog, but barely typed much of it) before, but nothing fancy.

~~~
fresleven
I think I may be more representative of the camp complaining about erlang's
syntax. My background is as a sysadmin without CS training, with only prior
experience using ruby, python, and shell scripting.

It took me about four months of hard studying for erlang to click. I think it
was due to learning some CS fundamentals (e.g. had never heard of a tuple
before, never seen multiple dispatch), learning functional programming
fundamentals (had never used a purely functional language before - unless you
count bash), and had never looked at prolog. Finally, I was simultaneously
exposed to new concepts of concurrency, pattern matching, etc.

I think what happened was that the unusual syntax is the easiest thing to
blame for the resulting confusion, because it's the surface layer you engage
with.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Ah, that would make sense. I already had some knowledge of general computing
"culture" before learning Erlang, so I did not stall much on the broader
concepts. Erlang is more heterodox, so it's likely the ideas could be an
initial obstacle.

------
clearing
It's funny, I set out to learn Erlang this year, but ended up learning Elixir
first. A lot of people go to great lengths to assure that Elixir is not the
"CoffeeScript of Erlang" (which I do understand refers to more than just
syntax improvements), but I found the opposite. After getting used to Elixir
syntax, Erlang seems aesthetically much more elegant.

~~~
hderms
Well it isn't just the CoffeeScript of Erlang for reasons like having better
string implementation, macros, subjectively better additions to standard
library, protocols, etc...

Whether those reasons are significant enough for you to use Elixir over Erlang
are another matter, but it wouldn't be classified as just another CoffeeScript
when compared honestly.

------
bfrog
Erlang's syntax really is really really easy... its just different enough that
it causes fence jumping when switching languages

~~~
FullyFunctional
2nded. IMO, Erlang the _language_ is really really simple and easy and the
basics can be learned in a few days, though it helps to have been exposed to
Lisp, PROLOG, or various functional languages.

What I find far more challenging is catching up with the myriads of libraries
& frameworks that are used to build real applications. Oh, and finding
compatible versions of these can also be an unwanted adventure at times.

