I remember the time I wanted to learn "C++" and bought a Visual C++ book. There were so many references to MFC and sdk-specific things that it made the learning process truly frustrating.
This is why I always pick learn-by-example guides when studying a new programming language and this is why I try to understand the core first.
Erlang is also a great programming language to start programming with because it's so simple and based on existing mathematical knowledge that many beginners already have (functions).
> Erlang is also a great programming language to start programming with because it's so simple and based on existing mathematical knowledge that many beginners already have (functions).
I strongly disagree with that. Erlang is simple neither in semantics nor in syntax (good luck putting your . and ; in the right place when you are learning).
The tools are also extremely poor, starting with the compiler's own error messages. This is the last place you want to confuse beginners if you want them to have fun learning a language.
The compiler messages are reasonable. It's inconvenient that errors are reported per function and not per line, but if you write short functions, and you should, the messages are just fine.
You're clearly exaggerating when stating that Erlang has "extremely poor" tools without giving any serious arguments.
Yeah, you should do that. You know that though because (I assume) you are a veteran programmer - or at least not a newbie, to whom this might not be as obvious as it is to you and me. Don't forget we are talking about people learning to program here.
This is why I always pick learn-by-example guides when studying a new programming language and this is why I try to understand the core first.
Erlang is also a great programming language to start programming with because it's so simple and based on existing mathematical knowledge that many beginners already have (functions).