4 ms·

I think it depends on your hiring process. Do you hire people who know how to code in language X and are really good at coding in language X but nothing else?

I think it depends on your hiring process. Do you hire people who know how to code in language X and are really good at coding in language X but nothing else? Or, do you hire people who are go-getters, want to use the best tool for the job, and want to learn? Because if the latter, Erlang/Elixir might be esoteric, but Elixir specifically is a simpler language than currently more popular languages like Python or Ruby. It's also more elegant. I like to think of it as Scheme + Ruby syntax + pattern matching + concurrency. If that excites you, carry on. If that scares you, go for something more traditional (and no hard feelings) :).

debacle 11y ago
I would confidently state the bigger problem would be salary. If you hire cheap programmers you probably can't afford to do Erlang development.
- nvarsj 11y ago
  Seems like a strange view to have. The best paying work is generally in boring, enterprise approved languages. It's probably a competitive advantage for a small company to pick a niche language - I wager they would hire better quality engineers for less money.
  - debacle 11y ago
    The best paying work is not in boring, enterprise approved languages. I'm not sure where you heard that.
namelezz 11y ago
Sometime I wonder why Elixir tries too hard to have Ruby syntax. Erlang: loop_through([H|T]) -> io:format('~p~n', [H]), loop_through(T); loop_through([]) -> ok. It seems convenient to use ';' to separate multiple definitions of a function compared to using 'end' in Elixir(function definition continues in the next block) Elixir: def loop_through([h|t]) do IO.inspect h loop_through t end def loop_through([]) do :ok end
- aaron-lebo 11y ago
  I believe, like Steve Yegge has said elsewhere, that programmers are lame, (and now paraphrasing) because they refuse to touch things that look odd. Erlang's syntax may be more efficient, but a lot of people won't touch it becuase the syntax is unfamiliar. Elixir has a huge advantage in this. It might not matter to you specifically, but in the realm of adoption that is huge. And honestly I really enjoy the syntax...
  - bpicolo 11y ago
    I mostly enjoy the syntax. Kind of hate that they made parentheses for function calls optional, especially since no-parentheses has ambiguous cases that behave weirdly (like with chaining syntax). Should be enforced. Also, all the different import-related keywords are pretty confusing. Maybe that's improved though
- vvanders 11y ago
  Does do/end make it much easier to build macros with Elixir? I don't find either syntax to be off-putting but that's just me.
- yelnatz 11y ago
  Much of the Ruby influence is because the creator of Elixir (José) was previously from the Rails core team.
- crymer11 11y ago
  Still pretty new to Elixir, so I welcome any suggestions, but from my understanding (and based on Elixir's guides [1]), I think that the more idiomatic way to approach this is to avoid writing such a loop_through/1 function and instead just use: Enum.each(<the list>, &IO.inspect(&1)) or likely <series of data transformations resulting in list> |> Enum.each(&IO.inspect(&1)) Both return the :ok at the end of the loop, so Enum.each/2 looks to be functionally equivalent. 1 - http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/recursion.html http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/recursion.html
- rdtsc 11y ago

debacle 11y ago

I would confidently state the bigger problem would be salary. If you hire cheap programmers you probably can't afford to do Erlang development.

nvarsj 11y ago
Seems like a strange view to have. The best paying work is generally in boring, enterprise approved languages. It's probably a competitive advantage for a small company to pick a niche language - I wager they would hire better quality engineers for less money.
- debacle 11y ago
  The best paying work is not in boring, enterprise approved languages. I'm not sure where you heard that.

namelezz 11y ago

Sometime I wonder why Elixir tries too hard to have Ruby syntax. Erlang: loop_through([H|T]) -> io:format('~p~n', [H]), loop_through(T); loop_through([]) -> ok. It seems convenient to use ';' to separate multiple definitions of a function compared to using 'end' in Elixir(function definition continues in the next block) Elixir: def loop_through([h|t]) do IO.inspect h loop_through t end def loop_through([]) do :ok end

aaron-lebo 11y ago
I believe, like Steve Yegge has said elsewhere, that programmers are lame, (and now paraphrasing) because they refuse to touch things that look odd. Erlang's syntax may be more efficient, but a lot of people won't touch it becuase the syntax is unfamiliar. Elixir has a huge advantage in this. It might not matter to you specifically, but in the realm of adoption that is huge. And honestly I really enjoy the syntax...
- bpicolo 11y ago
  I mostly enjoy the syntax. Kind of hate that they made parentheses for function calls optional, especially since no-parentheses has ambiguous cases that behave weirdly (like with chaining syntax). Should be enforced. Also, all the different import-related keywords are pretty confusing. Maybe that's improved though
vvanders 11y ago
Does do/end make it much easier to build macros with Elixir? I don't find either syntax to be off-putting but that's just me.
yelnatz 11y ago
Much of the Ruby influence is because the creator of Elixir (José) was previously from the Rails core team.
crymer11 11y ago
Still pretty new to Elixir, so I welcome any suggestions, but from my understanding (and based on Elixir's guides [1]), I think that the more idiomatic way to approach this is to avoid writing such a loop_through/1 function and instead just use: Enum.each(<the list>, &IO.inspect(&1)) or likely <series of data transformations resulting in list> |> Enum.each(&IO.inspect(&1)) Both return the :ok at the end of the loop, so Enum.each/2 looks to be functionally equivalent. 1 - http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/recursion.html http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/recursion.html
rdtsc 11y ago