Skip to content

Comment on Why Not Erlang? The Lack of Onramps

Comments

I know it's not full-on adoption, but one thing I noticed is that Erlang.org lacks an interactive REPL on their website, instead opting to just post a factorial demo[1] without really explaining it (akin to tryruby.org et al.)

A quick Google found TryErlang.org, which doesn't seem to be linked to the official Erlang website.

I'm a lot more inclined to learn about a language if I can try it in my browser without a download required. TryRuby.org was my first taster in Ruby and here I am 2 years later.

[1] http://www.erlang.org/static/getting_started_quickly.html

Erlang-the-language, as in what you can do from the REPL, is wholly non-interesting. It's a very basic functional language with message passing and process linking. The message passing and process linking are rather awkward to use from the REPL, leaving you with just a basic functional language.

Erlang-the-platform (i.e. OTP) is what's interesting. You can't really make OTP applications in the REPL, they consist of several modules with actual code requiring a modicum of forethought and design.

(Something more-than-a-REPL could be interesting, which helps you create an OTP tree complete with skeleton code. But at that point you're pretty much asking for a web-based IDE, and the prospective developer still needs to understand how to structure an application as processes.)

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.