[rdtsc]

> But basing your argument on an appeal to authority is just a logical falacy(sic) and is annoying.

But you are also making statements full of adjectives and subjective descriptions such "makes me cringe" and "probably doing it wrong". That is quite a bit of flair for someone expecting logical and nice refutation of their own statements.

If you jump in the middle of the discussion, throwing around "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" at everyone then don't be surprised you get replies that are equally accusatory and harsh.

BTW I still don't see what is really so cringe-worthy in calling it an operator. It is just syntactic sugar. Call it green tomatoes if you want. Joe calls it an operator. I understand what Joe means. It is like yelling at someone talking about function default arguments and saying "ha! bit it is all assembler underneath, all this is wrong, it is just registers and pointers!".

[evilduck]

And when someone says that the original author of Erlang is speaking wrong about a basic mechanism of... Erlang, I don't think there's going to be many objective responses, probably more pointing and laughing.

[davidw]

It's not a basic mechanism of Erlang, but Elixir.

[evilduck]

I'm not well versed in either language, but from the examples provided in the TFA it looks to me like the capability/mechanism of the operator appears to exist in Erlang and Prolog, while the operator syntax itself is only in Elixir.