From: Johnny Morrice <spoon@...>
Date: 2011-04-05T22:09:35+09:00
Subject: Re: functional languages -- any recommendations?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:43:42 +0900
Brian Candler <b.candler@pobox.com> wrote:

> You're probably thinking of "records", which are basically just named 
> offsets into a tuple.

Hey yeah I was!

> There are proper data structures too, such as "dict" which is
> somewhat like a ruby Hash.

I have should said I meant user defined data structures.

> It can be a bit overwhelming at first having all the different
> built-in types: tuple, list, binary (when you'd just use Array in
> ruby)

binary is not so unusual, kinda like bytestrings in python, or
Haskell., Except in Haskell a bytestring is user defined rather than
built in.

> > I really like erlang though, the syntax is cool.  Commas.
> 
> It takes some grokking as to when you need a comma, when you need a 
> semicolon, and when you need a dot. Erlang has great semantics and 
> terrible syntax.

Okay, I concede the point.  I am utterly wrong.  But I still enjoy the
asthetics. It's sort of like a sentence in English.