[upthedale]

But he isn't 'the' authority in FP, simply 'an' authority. And this particular thread seems to be more grounded in discussing FP concepts than Erlang.

I had a similar thought when reading the article, unaware to who wrote it... I wondered how currying and the like factored into the language, and thought that comparing |> to unix pipes was a big simplification. And whilst this simplification might be intentional for the article's purpose of giving an overview, it instead read - to me at least prior to realising who the author was - like the author was not fully informed on its use in other FP languages.

[jacquesm]

> But he isn't 'the' authority in FP, simply 'an' authority.

Sorry to see mr. Armstrong does not meet your requirements, would you like to take the matter up with mr. McCarthy instead?

> And this particular thread seems to be more grounded in discussing FP concepts than Erlang.

So? That makes it ok to speak in a disparaging manner about someone who did more for reliability of complex FP systems than anybody else that I'm currently aware of? And to fail to even do the author the courtesy of checking his/her credentials before firing off an ill thought out rant?

Really, not recognizing your elders and betters, -5 points, not knowing who they are, -50 points and being dead wrong on top of all that -500. The article is interesting for one reason only, it's Joe Armstrong writing about a new entrant on the VM that he designed and for those that are interested in such stuff his opinion carries a lot of weight. To dismiss his writings as the drivel of just another anonymous 'someone' who couldn't be bothered to do his homework about FP is ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

[upthedale]

> Anyway, I'm done with this thread

I'm glad you've decided to follow your own advice and stop digging.

Ignoring your original reply to arianvanp, you'll see that interesting discussion has arisen in response to their original bold statement. This is why I read HN.

You have entered this thread, seemingly to show off your superior knowledge of PL creators, without actually contributing to the discussion. My attempt to diffuse things clearly had the opposite effect (FWIW, I was trying to point out that the words used in the article could lead to the interesting discussion that has happened, and certainly wasn't defending an attack on Joe Armstrong - an attack that you have read into but I don't feel is there).

Instead, what has been achieved?

To go meta for a moment, this is the problem with with HN that gets discussed from time to time (and I am well aware that I'm replying to a highly active user). Why do people feel the need to be so combative, just to win internet points (something someone is down 555 of by your count)? Perhaps after having pointed out who the author was, you could have explained why that matters. Maybe we aren't all as clever as you are.

Yes, arianvanp's original post was also phrased in a somewhat combative way, but at least it sparked interesting discussion. This subthread is the antithesis of that.