upvote
From what I've seen... I think if I were writing business applications, I'd reach for Elixir... if I were writing something lower level like communication software, I'd reach for Erlang.

I have written a fair amount of Elixir (and targeting business applications) and I think Elixir's expressiveness lends itself well to making more abstract models of the business processes and data seen in solving business problems. However, writing Elixir I find you end up reading a lot of Erlang and in certain problem spaces I could imagine the appeal over Elixir. I could absolutely see where if I were writing more technically oriented programs.... programs closer to the hardware in some ways or programs designed to communicate with other programs (protocols, etc.) I could see Erlang as being a more clear and direct language in these circumstances.

All of this is very hand-wavy, but it's my impression.

reply
While I appreciate guest languages for bringing new ideas to specific language platforms, at the end of the day I rather use those that are developed alonside the platform, hence Erlang instead of Elixir, at least if I would be ever doing something with it again.

Last time I touched Erlang, "Learn you some Erlang for great good!" was fresh out of the printers.

reply
I loved Erlang. I want to use it, those who can master mnesia natively are a powerful wizard/ess. I've only touched the surface and seen it's raw power.

I've just not had time to learn further. As swapping between languages when trying to complete my original Tcl project is tricky. I'm now poking around with Crystal.

A rookie example of erlang and converting strings to base16. I posted in haste a while ago on Tcl's IRC but fun. Never did implement the teddy bear colour.

http://paste.tclers.tk/6165

reply
Elixir brings mostly a new syntax, and little more. I rather use Gleam IF i really need to use the BEAM.

Other than that, vanilla Erlang is THE way to go.

reply
deleted
reply
[dead]
reply
For me, Elixir misses the mark. If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev, I can see the appeal. It's a familiar set dressing. I don't have that background, I much prefer the syntactic structure of Erlang's psuedo-horn clauses. Both for similar familiarity reasons (I knew Prolog before I touched Erlang), as well as a general preference for the simplicity.
reply
> If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev

Millennials catching strays I see.

reply
> If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev

"claude, run 'npm install' for me"

reply
The similarity of Ruby and Elixir is only extremely superficial and betrays your lack of familiarity with the language.
reply
I didn't imply otherwise, nor is the story different on the Erlang-Prolog axis (actually it's even more pronounced there.) I literally called it "set dressing". Where I think you go off the rails is that you're conflating surface-level things with irrelevance. Which isn't really true, especially in matters of taste.

I find this to be a very strange thing to get defensive about. It's not exactly a subtle part of Elixir's history. It was pretty well documented to be born out of the creator's dissatisfaction with concurrency in Ruby, and simultaneously, for a more Ruby-like language on the BEAM. That doesn't mean it's literally Ruby-on-the-BEAM (which was originally attempted, and didn't work out), however mistaking that as cause to dismiss the link between the two and the carry-over appeal for developers is an unsound overcorrection.

reply
deleted
reply
Phoenix is a big part of the appeal of Elixir, independently of the differences between Elixir and Erlang.
reply