Erlang Users Group

[CLR]

Due to the surge in interest over the past year, I am going to start a
user group here in Portland devoted to all things Erlang. I will make
sure that it does not conflict with PDXfunc, because I am sure a lot
of us, like me, want to attend both. Right now I'm looking at the
fourth Tuesday of the month.

I have 'material' for about six monthly meetings. If anyone is
interested in helping organize, or wants to comment on scheduling, or
even just express interest, feel free to hit me up.

Thanks!
-Casey

[Merlyn Albery-Speyer]

Hey Casey,

Why not start out by using your material at the next PDXFunc meeting and take it from there?

Cheers,
Merlyn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pdxfunc" group.
To post to this group, send email to pdx...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pdxfunc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pdxfunc?hl=en.

[Chris Tilt]

I haven't attended any PDXFunc meetings yet, but this would push me
over the edge. Fourth Tuesdays would work well for me and I could help
with materials on occasion.

Cheers, Chris

[CLR]

Hi Merlyn,

That's not a bad idea, but the material is fairly exclusive to
Erlang. I have adapted a process that I pioneered in the Ruby
community called RubyGames where the focus is on learning the language
while simultaneously engaging people with no experience up to seasoned
professionals. There will not be room for long presentations, and the
process continues indefinitely.

The PDXFunc that I attended revolved around a long presentation, and
assumed a comprehensive understanding of Haskell. I think that is
great for people who already have a solid understanding of functional
programming, but the Erlang User Group has a different target
audience. I just don't think that the Erlang material would be a good
fit for PDXFunc.

That said, I think there will be a lot of overlap in the people who
want to attend both, and I am an example of that. I'd be happy to
talk to you more about it at next week's meeting. Looking forward to
it.

Thanks!
-Casey

On Feb 6, 5:42 am, Merlyn Albery-Speyer

<curious.attempt.bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Casey,
>
> Why not start out by using your material at the next PDXFunc meeting and
> take it from there?
>
> Cheers,
> Merlyn

[Reid Beels]

On Monday, February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM, CLR wrote:

Hi Merlyn,

That's not a bad idea, but the material is fairly exclusive to

Erlang. I have adapted a process that I pioneered in the Ruby

community called RubyGames where the focus is on learning the language

while simultaneously engaging people with no experience up to seasoned

professionals. There will not be room for long presentations, and the

process continues indefinitely.

The PDXFunc that I attended revolved around a long presentation, and

assumed a comprehensive understanding of Haskell. I think that is

great for people who already have a solid understanding of functional

programming, but the Erlang User Group has a different target

audience. I just don't think that the Erlang material would be a good

fit for PDXFunc.

FWIW, though a lot of PDXFunc meetings tend to be Haskell-heavy, it's definitely not a Haskell group. I've been to PDXFunc meetings with long presentations, sure, but I've also been to PDXFunc meetings that were basically group-spelunking though twisted code bases and unstructured Q and A sessions. I definitely see Erlang as relevant content and would second the recommendation to lead at least one PDXFunc meeting on this topic. Even if all it ended up being was a recruitment effort, I think a lot of people would find it valuable.

Reid

[CLR]

Thanks, Chris! You can help out here:
http://groups.google.com/group/pdxerlang

-Casey

On Feb 6, 11:22 am, Chris Tilt <chris.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't attended any PDXFunc meetings yet, but this would push me
> over the edge. Fourth Tuesdays would work well for me and I could help
> with materials on occasion.
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Merlyn Albery-Speyer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <curious.attempt.bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Casey,
>
> > Why not start out by using your material at the next PDXFunc meeting and
> > take it from there?
>
> > Cheers,
> > Merlyn
>

[Jesse Cooke]

+1 for pdxfunc. Though I find Haskell interesting I'd prefer to hear about other FP langs for a while. Beginner content is cool too, especially for those like me that spend their days with turtles all the way down. ;)

@jc00ke http://jc00ke.com

[Matt Youell]

On 2/6/12 1:02 PM, CLR wrote:
> The PDXFunc that I attended revolved around a long presentation, and
> assumed a comprehensive understanding of Haskell. I think that is
> great for people who already have a solid understanding of functional
> programming, but the Erlang User Group has a different target
> audience. I just don't think that the Erlang material would be a good
> fit for PDXFunc.

I found PDXFunc years ago when I was looking for an Erlang group. Some
Erlang discussion at PDXFunc would be awesome!

I *have* started to think of PDXFunc as a defacto PDX Haskell. I think
there's something to that.

--
-/matt/-
http://youell.com/matt

[Chris Tilt]

I don't mean to start a flame, so please don't take this personally,
but I also think of PDXFunc as a Haskell space. I've always felt that
I *should* learn Haskell, but I've found that shipping products has
driven a *must* use of Ocaml and Erlang. That's just my opinion and
practical experience. I know there are terrific success stories with
other functional languages, e.g. Galois' use of Haskell; and I'm not
trying to start a debate. M personal preference would be to create a
separate space for Erlang, to which I'd gladly participate with the
hopes of increasing Portland's use of the language in both hobbyist
and production development.

Cheers, Chris

[Jesse Cooke]

pdxfunc is seen as a Haskell space because that's the content people have talked about most often. That doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. Personally, I'm tired of it always being Haskell. One of the best meetings I have been to was Youell's talk on Wheeler. Another great talk was on the LISP implementation in JS using trampolines. Why not branch out to more OCaml & Erlang? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a whole 'nother group just for Erlang, but I see the view of pdxfunc as Haskell only/mostly Haskell to be tiresome.

--------------------------------------------
Jesse Cooke :: N-tier Engineer
jc00ke.com / @jc00ke

[Tim O'Connor]

Whatever you decide, forking off an Erlang group or folding it into
PDXFunc, please let this mailing list know. While I've never quite
made it to a PDXFunc meeting I'm sure Erlang would sway me to do so.
Nothing against any other language. It's just that after a short intro
I've recently had Erlang looks like it reflects that way I tend to
think about problems so I have an interest in learning more.

to'c

[Bart Massey]

My opinion probably isn't so relevant, since I won't be able to make PDXFunc meetings for the foreseeable future because of my Monday-night teaching schedule at least through August (and likely beyond). Of course, I've never been known to let irrelevance stop me.

I really am interested in a functional programming interest group focused on functional programming and functional (or mostly-functional) programming languages. To my mind, that means Haskell, CAML, SML, Coq and Agda (most of which have appeared at PDXFunc in the past), but not so much Erlang and various mostly-imperative languages that have appeared in the past.

I think it's terrific that people enjoy these languages, and I encourage folks to pursue them. However, it seems to me we should either change the name and focus of the group, or stick to functional programming and an FP group. I'd be fine with either; however, I personally would be unlikely to attend a general "PL interest" group, as I'm not really up for chasing Erlang, the various mostly-Java languages, etc right now.

My opinion as to the "Haskell-nature" of meetings I've attended is that (a) Haskell is harder to learn and understand how to use well than most languages, so it's been a topic of emphasis; (b) more of our members know Haskell than any other mostly-functional language; and (c) Haskell is a really nice language for capturing and describing pure-functional programming ideas. (Are (a) and (c) contradictory? I don't know.)

That said, if I could ever make it I'd love to talk a bit about Standard ML (to my mind the "real" ML :-), and there's room for a ton of plain ol' PL-independent FP content. I'd be great with a talk that's pure pseudocode.

Anyway, I'll shut up now. Best wishes to the group and all its members whatever course all y'all take.

[Steve Goss]

I've been lurking on the mailing list for awhile. I've been to one meeting which was pretty much pure Haskell discussion which assumed a level of familiarity with Haskell's type machinations and peculiar syntax I do not possess, yet. Taking a more liberal interpretation of "functional programming" than Bart, I think there are lot of people interested in other things like Erlang, various Lisps, and JVM languages with functional leanings that are under-served in local programming meet-ups. I'm one. A successful pattern I've seen at the Python meet-up is to have a number of people give short presentations on completely different topics with discussion.

-Steve Goss

[Jesse Hallett]

I would like to +1 a broader interpretation of functional programming.
I am also interested in talks on Erlang, Clojure, Scala (although
there is now a separate Scala group), or whatever.

Though I agree that there are a bunch of members who are familiar with
Haskell, I think that we also have people who are not and who probably
get a bit lost when topics go deep into Haskell land.

[Patrick Logan]

+1 for me as well, I am interested "mostly-functional" programming in
general and the languages that enable that style to varying degrees.

[Lyle Kopnicky]

Erlang has functional features. Though it is not pure, it supports a strong functional subset.

Though I'm a big Haskell fan, I also would love to see more discussion of other languages at PDX Func. In fact, I think it is a good place to discuss any non-mainstream paradigms.

- Lyle

[Jake Brownson]

Another big +1 for bringing the content to PDXFunc. Though I'm not
quite literate in Haskell I've been fascinated w/ the Haskell
presentations, but I'd really love to see what folks are doing with
other functional languages, particularly erlang. I think the Haskell
focus comes more from a lack of folks coming up w/ other topics than
an attempt to focus on it. I've even done a couple non-haskell
presentations.

I also agree w/ Lyle that it'd be completely fine to discuss cool
things that aren't completely functional (we talked about node.js
briefly at the last one).

Jake

[Igal Koshevoy]

Sorry for joining this conversation late. I'm finally back in the US and coherent enough to try to read through this thread....

Due to the surge in interest over the past year, I am going to start a
user group here in Portland devoted to all things Erlang.

Awesome. You're welcome to present content at existing pdxfunc meetings, because we've always wanted to have more Erlang content and haven't been able to find enough practitioners to present it. However, If you decide to start having separate meetings, that's great too and you should feel free to cross-post you meeting announcements to pdxfunc because many here would be interested.

 

The PDXFunc that I attended revolved around a long presentation, and

assumed a comprehensive understanding of Haskell.

pdxfunc is a very flexible group that covers many languages, caters to different skill levels, and has many presentation formats -- it really depends on who is there that night and how they participate.

I've kicked off every meeting by encouraging everyone present to ask questions, share experiences and participate, and I really mean it. If you're not getting value out of the group or a particular presentation, please say so in a tactful, constructive way, e.g. "I don't know Haskell, but know Ruby -- can someone explain what that code is doing?" or "I'm not familiar with the concept you just referred to -- can you explain that in simpler words?" or "Is there an equivalent feature/library/etc for Erlang or Ocaml? How would I use it?" or "Can I present an Erlang talk next month?" are very welcome comments.

I *have* started to think of PDXFunc as a defacto PDX Haskell. I think there's something to that.

[...] 

shipping products has driven a *must* use of Ocaml and Erlang. 

[...]

pdxfunc is seen as a Haskell space because that's the content people have talked about most often. That doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. Personally, I'm tired of it always being Haskell.

 

From day one, pdxfunc has been a polyglot group. From the kick-off meeting in 2007: "We want this group to welcome everyone, regardless of their level of experience with FP or the language they use." http://goo.gl/Tgh2r

We've been very privileged to have many enthusiastic Haskell programmers step forward in the past at pdxfunc to give talks, explore coding challenges, and share their insights. They've set a great example that I'd love to see others follow.

You do NOT need to be an expert to participate or present at pdxfunc. Many of our best meetings were the result of brave non-experts stepping forward because they wanted to learn something, and were willing to frame the questions and guide the group through an exercise or discussion. Some examples from the past:

* I wanted to understand how the Yesod web framework was implemented. I learned how to use it and gave a talk about how its features were used, and then lead the group on a code spelunking exercise where we tried to figure out how the features were implemented. This was awesome because in many cases, a single person couldn't figure something out because there was too much magic, but working together, we were able to collectively solve the mysteries.

* Jesse wanted to learn how to use data types to do unit conversions, e.g. add X meters to Y feet and get an answer back in furlongs. He put together some sample code demonstrating the various use cases and a few attempts to implement this. By the end of the meeting, between him and a few other clever participants coding away on the projector, we'd come up with a complete, working implementation.

* Mark wanted to learn how to find and prevent time and space leaks in his programs. He presented a number of different chunks of code that demonstrated various leaks, explained the things he understood, and asked about the stuff he didn't. This inspired some great discussion and much was learned by those present.

So here's my challenge to all of you that want other languages and topics discussed: PARTICIPATE! :D

-igal

[CLR]

Thanks everyone for your input! I love the polyglot format of
PDXFunc, and I am looking forward to future meetings continuing in the
same tradition.

I am also happy to announce the first meeting of PDXErlang:
http://groups.google.com/group/pdxerlang/browse_thread/thread/13332db38be5a870?hl=en_US

I know that there may be a lot of overlap between these two groups,
and I'm really looking forward to watching both groups flourish. An
analogy was made above to 'forking' the Erlang group. I know that
code metaphors are king, but forking is often associated with limited
developer resources being split over an ideological difference.
Nothing of the sort is happing here. We have to remember that first-
and-foremost, user groups are social functions. When you think of it
that way, the more the merrier! I would much rather go out to an UG
after work than go home and not talk about code. :-) So here's to
having more opportunities to hang out with fellow coders!

See you all on Monday!

Thanks!
-Casey