<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Damien Katz Criticizes Erlang</title>
	<atom:link href="http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/</link>
	<description>Ask forgiveness, not permission.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Erlang Tidbits &#124; Programmer&#8217;s Paradox</title>
		<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/#comment-734</link>
		<dc:creator>Erlang Tidbits &#124; Programmer&#8217;s Paradox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/#comment-734</guid>
		<description>[...] Partial Rebuttal of Why Erlang Sucks [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Partial Rebuttal of Why Erlang Sucks [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve</title>
		<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/#comment-731</link>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:24:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/#comment-731</guid>
		<description>Kevin: I think that's fine too, as long as there's just a few such functions. If I had a long list of functions, though, I'd use my approach, and would bind the &lt;code&gt;fun&lt;/code&gt; list to a variable on a separate line to make it clearer. Also, your approach assumes that the result of one funcall is fed directly into the next, where using &lt;code&gt;foldl&lt;/code&gt; allows the result to be manipulated before being passed to the next funcall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin: I think that&#8217;s fine too, as long as there&#8217;s just a few such functions. If I had a long list of functions, though, I&#8217;d use my approach, and would bind the <code>fun</code> list to a variable on a separate line to make it clearer. Also, your approach assumes that the result of one funcall is fed directly into the next, where using <code>foldl</code> allows the result to be manipulated before being passed to the next funcall.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Scaldeferri</title>
		<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/#comment-730</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Scaldeferri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/03/10/damien-katz-criticizes-erlang/#comment-730</guid>
		<description>I guess I don't understand why

f(X) -&#62; baz(bar(fab(foo(X))))

isn't considered superior to both of these.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess I don&#8217;t understand why</p>
<p>f(X) -&gt; baz(bar(fab(foo(X))))</p>
<p>isn&#8217;t considered superior to both of these.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
