Poll: Erlang Innards Better?
Which language or platform do you think has the best innards?
7 comments
Innards? You mean language specification? Or how nice the source code looks of an implementation of the language?
For .NET you have two implementations (MS CLR and Mono), but for lisp it's just Lisp, even though different implementations are leagues apart.
If we talk implementation, I think SBCL is great because it's comprehensible and very feature rich. CPython's source looks nice, but Python doesn't do much, so I don't consider that an amazing achievement. GHC? Bit of a mess internally, but stable. Ruby? Regular mess.
If we talk spec, it's very different. Haskell is (mostly) well defined (in exactly the way C++ isn't). Ruby is still a mess. Python is mostly sane, with a bunch of weird decisions made early on. .NET is pretty great.
But look, I'm just making a bunch of assertions. Nuance is no fun, anyway. Let's just vote!
For .NET you have two implementations (MS CLR and Mono), but for lisp it's just Lisp, even though different implementations are leagues apart.
If we talk implementation, I think SBCL is great because it's comprehensible and very feature rich. CPython's source looks nice, but Python doesn't do much, so I don't consider that an amazing achievement. GHC? Bit of a mess internally, but stable. Ruby? Regular mess.
If we talk spec, it's very different. Haskell is (mostly) well defined (in exactly the way C++ isn't). Ruby is still a mess. Python is mostly sane, with a bunch of weird decisions made early on. .NET is pretty great.
But look, I'm just making a bunch of assertions. Nuance is no fun, anyway. Let's just vote!
I meant how the code that runs the languages is constructed. For .NET, this would mean the internals of the CLR. For some versions of BASIC, it might be how the interpreter is constructed.
I really didn't mean how code looks in the language. What I meant was how the language/platform is architected/constructed.
But hey, voting is fun enough without all this silly definition stuff.
I really didn't mean how code looks in the language. What I meant was how the language/platform is architected/constructed.
But hey, voting is fun enough without all this silly definition stuff.
Scheme! You can fit an interpreter on a black board.
I MEAN ERLANG HAHA LOL:
my website: http://www.erlang.ewebsite.com/page/erlang
my website: http://www.erlang.ewebsite.com/page/erlang