4 ms·

I didn't say there weren't such projects. Just, the defining part of those projects is "the bulk of the work is the dependency integration" (and implicitly, tho

I didn't say there weren't such projects. Just, the defining part of those projects is "the bulk of the work is the dependency integration" (and implicitly, those dependencies are sufficiently unique and uncommon as to be implemented only in a limited subset of languages), and that is not the same thing as "CRUD app". You are using the phrases interchangeably, and using that as grounds to reject Erlang.

R0b0t1 5y ago
It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what other people think, and yes, compatibility with their existing infrastructure is something that is highly desirable. From my other comment: The people here are not really painting a good picture of BEAM vm languages. The typical complaint is some extremely energetic new hire wants to use Erlang for something, does, and then it turns into a hard to maintain mess. You can equivocate about the specific reasons but if you are really going to say ignoring legacy compatibility is stupid then I'm not sure what to tell you.