> Erlang solve stuff that is very niche Well, it's true that Erlang supports some strange, esoteric (at least, esoteric for people outside of telecom) protocol

> Erlang solve stuff that is very niche Well, it's true that Erlang supports some strange, esoteric (at least, esoteric for people outside of telecom) protocols. But it supports all the "normal" stuff also, as you write: > Erlang had cowboy, etc.. but it wasn't close to the other MVC language. Cowboy is actually pretty decent a framework for web development. It's not Rails or Django equivalent, it's similar to something like stripped-down CherryPy, which may be regarded as minimalistic, but it's perfectly functional. And fast. And WebSocket handling is pure bliss. So, Cowboy doesn't support MVC out of the box, but you can implement this pattern on top of Cowboy in ~30 loc. > So practicing Erlang to get real experiences in it was hard. Erlang is different. From its Prolog roots to its concurrency primitives to immutability and tail-call elimination - it's built to be different. It's not exactly surprising that you can't use it as freely as you'd like immediately after learning it. It's expected. The only thing I can tell you now is that the problem disappears with time. You need to practice Erlang fundamentals for a bit and slowly advance to more complex topics. In my case, it took me a year to become proficient with Erlang: the main language was a bit of a hassle, but its std library and OTP and ecosystem in general took even more effort to grok. OTOH, after a year of learning and practicing, I was able to write a proof-of-concept web apps in a day, including learning Cowboy. The "proof-of-concept" was fast and solid enough that it reached production stage and ran there for 3 years until finally replaced by some other tool. So I'd say it's worth the effort, but of course YMMV :)