This is true, but it misses the point: Erlang is missing enough things that this fellow would rather rewrite OTP in Lua than deal with Erlang.
e.g. string handling
e.g. string handling
Robert - one of the things that occasionally bothers me about Erlang is that if something like string handling is so trivial, then it should be made available as a more extensive library, rather than an exercise that leaves the reader wishing they were using another language that handles boring stuff like that. It may well not be trivial for the person just get started with it, and you've lost a user if they give up in frustration.
Here's one of the other inventors of the language asking for help about splitting a string, for instance:
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2014-February/0...
I just want to point out that I don't dislike Lua at all, it is a small neat language with some very nice features. It just isn't something on which I would base a parallel system as it has too much sharing and other things which don't go parallel easily. Using it as plugin to erlang for doing "business" logic works quite well, either by communicating with a Lua system or doing like Luerl and implementing it Erlang. This means that Luerl meshes completely with Erlang.