Re: Collateral Damage

--000000000000e4620d05dd7ea75a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:03 PM [email protected] <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Dear Austin,
>
> To assert that people do not like a particular proposal because =E2=80=9C=
it looks
> too much like Elixir=E2=80=9D is not just unfair, but outright insulting.
>

How, then is one supposed to take comments as the following (emphases added
by me):

   - And furthermore in this particular EEP there's this thing I hate more
   than anything else - turning language X to language Y. Quote - "This is
   known as "pinning" in Elixir - see the Elixir documentation." *If you
   like Elixir do your job with Elixir. Why spoil Erlang?* Especially when,
   quote - "In current Erlang, this behaviour is what happens
   automatically...".
   - I said it for years. *Elixir is cutting the branch it is sitting on.*
   - Retire the entire string-as-list paradigm, use binaries by default (*t=
he
   one good thing about Elixir*), and at last make everything UTF-8 by
   default.
   - Somehow my (sad) feeling is the idea is exactly in destroying the
   Erlang as we know it. "*No matter how hard we try, we cannot make Elixir
   more preferable -- at least let us make Erlang *less* preferable.*"
   - *One question - why? Just because we can? Erlang is doomed, Sorry Joe,
   we f**d things up.*

This thread is about discussing a proposal for language change and we
> should try our best to keep our focus on that.
> Introducing a completely irrelevant (I=E2=80=99d even say imaginary) argu=
ment in
> support of any given position is not helpful at all.
>

One would be hard pressed to call my characterization of these quotes as
*imaginary*. These are all from the last ~3 days (and reflect 3=E2=80=934 d=
ifferent
posters). The previous discussion about 18 months ago was just as full of
such hyperbolic inanity. I think that my shorthand of "it looks too much
like Elixir" as characterizations of these quotes is as positive as one can
get.

Languages *do* evolve over time. I don=E2=80=99t have a strong opinion on t=
his EEP,
as I don=E2=80=99t generally write Erlang. I think that there are some soli=
d
objections to it as written, and at least a couple of counter-proposals
that should probably be written as EEPs as alternatives to this one (and to
each other; the two would probably be mutually exclusive). I even agree
that "oh, ghu, *another* sigil" is a legitimate objection (there=E2=80=99s =
some
recent syntax added to Ruby that I=E2=80=99m ambivalent to negative about).=
 But any
objection which includes fears of Erlang becoming not Erlang or slights
against another programming language for *reasons *can and should probably
be dismissed from the discussion for being hyperbolic and unproductive. It
indicates that the posters don=E2=80=99t have any trust in the Erlang core
development team, and are likely pining for a time / world that never
actually existed.

Broadly, this would be the difference between conservationism and
conservatism. The former is good. The latter leads to stagnation,
irrelevance, and regression.

-a
--=20
Austin Ziegler =E2=80=A2 [email protected] =E2=80=A2 [email protected]=
a
http://www.halostatue.ca/ =E2=80=A2 http://twitter.com/halostatue

--000000000000e4620d05dd7ea75a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:03 PM <a href=
=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-=
color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word=
;line-break:after-white-space"><div>Dear Austin,=C2=A0</div><div><br></div>=
<div>To assert that people do not like a particular proposal because =E2=80=
=9Cit looks too much like Elixir=E2=80=9D is not just unfair, but outright =
insulting.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How, then is one sup=
posed to take comments as the following (emphases added by me):</div><div><=
ul><li>And furthermore in this particular EEP there&#39;s this thing I hate=
 more than anything else - turning language X to language Y. Quote - &quot;=
This is known as &quot;pinning&quot; in Elixir - see the Elixir documentati=
on.&quot; <b>If you like Elixir do your job with Elixir. Why spoil Erlang?<=
/b> Especially when, quote - &quot;In current Erlang, this behaviour is wha=
t happens automatically...&quot;.</li><li>I said it for years. <b>Elixir is=
 cutting the branch it is sitting on.</b><br></li><li>Retire the entire str=
ing-as-list paradigm, use binaries by default (<b>the one good thing about =
Elixir</b>), and at last make everything UTF-8 by default.</li><li>Somehow =
my (sad) feeling is the idea is exactly in destroying the Erlang<span class=
=3D"gmail-Apple-converted-space">=C2=A0</span>as we know it. &quot;<b>No ma=
tter how hard we try, we cannot make Elixir more<span class=3D"gmail-Apple-=
converted-space">=C2=A0</span>preferable -- at least let us make Erlang *le=
ss* preferable.</b>&quot;</li><li><b>One question - why? Just because we ca=
n? Erlang is doomed, Sorry Joe, we f**d things up.</b></li></ul></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-=
width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space=
"><div>This thread is about discussing a proposal for language change and w=
e should try our best to keep our focus on that.</div><div>Introducing a co=
mpletely irrelevant (I=E2=80=99d even say imaginary) argument in support of=
 any given position is not helpful at all.</div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=
=A0</div><div>One would be hard pressed to call my characterization of thes=
e quotes as <i>imaginary</i>. These are all from the last ~3 days (and refl=
ect 3=E2=80=934 different posters). The previous discussion about 18 months=
 ago was just as full of such hyperbolic inanity. I think that my shorthand=
 of &quot;it looks too much like Elixir&quot; as characterizations of these=
 quotes is as positive as one can get.</div><div><br></div><div>Languages <=
i>do</i>=C2=A0evolve over time. I don=E2=80=99t have a strong opinion on th=
is EEP, as I don=E2=80=99t generally write Erlang. I think that there are s=
ome solid objections to it as written, and at least a couple of counter-pro=
posals that should probably be written as EEPs as alternatives to this one =
(and to each other; the two would probably be mutually exclusive). I even a=
gree that &quot;oh, ghu, <i>another</i>=C2=A0sigil&quot; is a legitimate ob=
jection (there=E2=80=99s some recent syntax added to Ruby that I=E2=80=99m =
ambivalent to negative about). But any objection which includes fears of Er=
lang becoming not Erlang or slights against another programming language fo=
r <i>reasons </i>can and should probably be dismissed from the discussion f=
or being hyperbolic and unproductive. It indicates that the posters don=E2=
=80=99t have any trust in the Erlang core development team, and are likely =
pining for a time / world that never actually existed.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>Broadly, this would be the difference between conservationism and cons=
ervatism. The former is good. The latter leads to stagnation, irrelevance, =
and regression.</div><div><br></div><div>-a</div></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"l=
tr" class=3D"gmail_signature">Austin Ziegler =E2=80=A2 <a href=3D"mailto:ha=
[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a> =E2=80=A2 <a=
 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]=
a</a><br><a href=3D"http://www.halostatue.ca/" target=3D"_blank">http://www=
.halostatue.ca/</a> =E2=80=A2 <a href=3D"http://twitter.com/halostatue" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://twitter.com/halostatue</a></div></div>

--000000000000e4620d05dd7ea75a--