Erlang's semantics are so very different from most other languages that having an arcane Prolog-derived syntax is just insult to injury.
In addition to all the conceptual, semantic leaps that Erlang asks you to make, you also have to learn a syntax which is very different from the Algol/C-based languages most people are used to.
I buy the argument that maybe, if you get used to it, Erlang's syntax can be beautiful. But it's still very much a barrier to people who have never used the Prolog language "family" (which as noted earlier includes... Prolog and Erlang).
In my personal experience having used Erlang for some 3 years now, I still find its syntax ugly and obtrusive.
I found I adapted to Erlang's syntax in under a week. I'm far from proficient in Erlang, but it's not an issue of syntax, rather experience.
Erlang syntax is a bit different, and there are even (IMHO) internal inconsistencies, but I didn't find it any more of a roadblock than e.g. python's indentation conventions. Each person is different I guess.
Erlang's semantics are so very different from most other languages that having an arcane Prolog-derived syntax is just insult to injury.
In addition to all the conceptual, semantic leaps that Erlang asks you to make, you also have to learn a syntax which is very different from the Algol/C-based languages most people are used to.
I buy the argument that maybe, if you get used to it, Erlang's syntax can be beautiful. But it's still very much a barrier to people who have never used the Prolog language "family" (which as noted earlier includes... Prolog and Erlang).
In my personal experience having used Erlang for some 3 years now, I still find its syntax ugly and obtrusive.