# Some Thoughts Regarding Recent EEPs - should Erlang be kept minimal/small?

**URL:** <https://erlangforums.com/t/some-thoughts-regarding-recent-eeps-should-erlang-be-kept-minimal-small/4099>\
**Category:** Chat / Discussions\
**Tags:** erlang\
**Created:** [October 20, 2024, 2:37pm UTC](https://erlangforums.com/t/some-thoughts-regarding-recent-eeps-should-erlang-be-kept-minimal-small/4099 "2024-10-20T14:37:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hanssv](https://erlangforums.com/user_avatar/erlangforums.com/hanssv/32/874_2.png) [@hanssv](https://erlangforums.com/u/hanssv)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2024, 1:04pm UTC](https://erlangforums.com/t/some-thoughts-regarding-recent-eeps-should-erlang-be-kept-minimal-small/4099/13 "2024-10-21T13:04:12Z")

</div>

This is all great insight, and a couple of arguments for the flip side of adding syntax. I wonder if perhaps there is a communication problem then? My main gripe in [EEP70](https://erlangforums.com/t/eep-70-non-filtering-generators/3937) was the lack of positive support, no one could be arsed to write a single supportive thing (apart from the EEP author, who unsurprisingly was in favor) - apparently such opinions exist and there are some (semi-)valid arguments for why adding crashing generators to the language. At least this was very non-visible to me.

> [@jhogberg](#):
>
> The vast majority of times that `<-` is used, `<:-` is the actual intent, and I cannot think of a single time that `<=` was not intended as `<:=`

That is, for sure, not true in the code bases I’ve worked with, admittedly it is very hard to quantify these things, but I can’t really think of many times when I’d whished for a generator to crash. It happens that you change a data-structure and accidentally filter out everything, but you normally notice quickly regardless 😅

---

_[View the full topic](https://erlangforums.com/t/some-thoughts-regarding-recent-eeps-should-erlang-be-kept-minimal-small/4099)._