5 ms·

Erlang is a great programming language after one takes the time to understand the principles underlying it and its design. Everything fits very nicely into plac

by mnd 10y ago

Erlang is a great programming language after one takes the time to understand the principles underlying it and its design. Everything fits very nicely into place. There are definitely things that could be done better, but then that’s the case with most programming languages and technologies after they have accumulated some dust. Elixir on the other hand, in my personal opinion, is a false prophet simply because it looks like something which it isn’t. It looks like Ruby and gives the programmer the feeling that he’s right at home, except it is in fact a very different beast with very different semantics, Erlang semantics, as opposed to Ruby. Therefore, if you want to program on the BEAM (the Erlang virtual machine) you better make sure you actually understand the system, its design, principles and also some of the semantics of Erlang itself, point at which you might as well just learn Erlang. I’m not saying that you cannot learn those things coming from Elixir, I’m just saying that if you want to build systems of reasonable complexity (like the ones that Erlang is known for) on top of the Erlang virtual machine, as opposed to CRUD web applications, then you must understand a lot more than just Elixir or Phoenix.

yellowapple 10y ago
This is a big part of the reason why I appreciate having learned at least the basics of Erlang before moving on to Elixir, having come from Ruby. It helped establish an appreciation in my brain for declarative programming - something which is possible to do in Ruby, but nowhere close to the extent possible in Erlang or Elixir (or any other language with a similar approach to "pattern matching" as a first-class programming paradigm). Of course, I tend to feel much more productive in Elixir than Erlang, and thus use Elixir way more often than Erlang directly, but I'm able to come at Elixir with a more Erlangy perspective and approach.
macintux 10y ago
I strongly agree. I've found it tremendously convenient to have an "alien" syntax (Erlang) to help me think Erlang-y. (Now, of course, when I see more "traditional" C/Ruby/Perl/Python/Rust syntax, I can't help but roll my eyes, but that's a slightly different subject.)
digitalzombie 10y ago
Elixir is prettier than Erlang but it really mess up on certain things. Erlang have pattern matching via function with same name and you can tell if it's a group of pattern matching with semicolon and period. But with Elixir you can't tell it's just def and end. Erlang's: -module(recursive). -export([fac/1]). fac(N) when N == 0 -> 1; fac(N) when N > 0 -> N * fac(N-1). You can tell fac(N) both are in a group of pattern matching cause ';' and '.'. The '.' denote the last pattern matching function. Elixir: defmodule Factorial do def of(0), do: 1 def of(n), do: n * of(n-1) end You can't tell because there is no ';' and '.'. This is a trivial case but when your Elixir's module have a tons of function in it, this issue become relevant.
- ryeguy 10y ago
  How does that matter? Anyone who uses this defines them in groups one after another. You aren't looking at the punctuation at the end of the line, you're looking at the following line to see if it's the same function name.
  - digitalzombie 10y ago
    It matter because you're assuming they will group it. IIRC Erlang forces you to group it.
    - ryeguy 10y ago
      It's an incredibly safe assumption to make, though. This isn't enough of a problem in practice to amount to a negative for elixir or a pro for erlang.
- slrz 10y ago
  I think you make the Erlang definition look unnecessarily awful. fac(0) -> 1; fac(N) -> N * fac(N-1). Or is there a particular advantage to write it using guards?
  - jknoepfler 10y ago

by mnd 10y ago

yellowapple 10y ago

This is a big part of the reason why I appreciate having learned at least the basics of Erlang before moving on to Elixir, having come from Ruby. It helped establish an appreciation in my brain for declarative programming - something which is possible to do in Ruby, but nowhere close to the extent possible in Erlang or Elixir (or any other language with a similar approach to "pattern matching" as a first-class programming paradigm). Of course, I tend to feel much more productive in Elixir than Erlang, and thus use Elixir way more often than Erlang directly, but I'm able to come at Elixir with a more Erlangy perspective and approach.

macintux 10y ago

I strongly agree. I've found it tremendously convenient to have an "alien" syntax (Erlang) to help me think Erlang-y. (Now, of course, when I see more "traditional" C/Ruby/Perl/Python/Rust syntax, I can't help but roll my eyes, but that's a slightly different subject.)

digitalzombie 10y ago

Elixir is prettier than Erlang but it really mess up on certain things. Erlang have pattern matching via function with same name and you can tell if it's a group of pattern matching with semicolon and period. But with Elixir you can't tell it's just def and end. Erlang's: -module(recursive). -export([fac/1]). fac(N) when N == 0 -> 1; fac(N) when N > 0 -> N * fac(N-1). You can tell fac(N) both are in a group of pattern matching cause ';' and '.'. The '.' denote the last pattern matching function. Elixir: defmodule Factorial do def of(0), do: 1 def of(n), do: n * of(n-1) end You can't tell because there is no ';' and '.'. This is a trivial case but when your Elixir's module have a tons of function in it, this issue become relevant.

ryeguy 10y ago
How does that matter? Anyone who uses this defines them in groups one after another. You aren't looking at the punctuation at the end of the line, you're looking at the following line to see if it's the same function name.
- digitalzombie 10y ago
  It matter because you're assuming they will group it. IIRC Erlang forces you to group it.
  - ryeguy 10y ago
    It's an incredibly safe assumption to make, though. This isn't enough of a problem in practice to amount to a negative for elixir or a pro for erlang.
slrz 10y ago
I think you make the Erlang definition look unnecessarily awful. fac(0) -> 1; fac(N) -> N * fac(N-1). Or is there a particular advantage to write it using guards?
- jknoepfler 10y ago