4 ms·
> Nobody cared about Erlang back then and nobody does today. > > I write Erlang for a living. I think this is incredibly correct and obviously personally true
by hardwaresofton 1y ago
> Nobody cared about Erlang back then and nobody does today.
>
> I write Erlang for a living.
I think this is incredibly correct and obviously personally true for you but I'd like to add one more thing from the peanut gallery.
No one really needs Erlang either. Turns out most problems are just fine not being modeled in the way that Erlang wants to model problems.
- tacitusarc 1y agoJust as a someone with a hammer could truthfully claim they don’t need a nail gun. Not that I think Erlang manages to be a nail gun; it has enough idiosyncrasies that the comparison is not terribly accurate. Still, “need” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
- hardwaresofton 1y ago> Not that I think Erlang manages to be a nail gun; it has enough idiosyncrasies that the comparison is not terribly accurate. Still, “need” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Yeah it was a bit vague -- I should have said something more like "not many developers/teams/companies need telecom level uptime and resilience enforced at the single system level". In reality, most groups have solved this by redundancy and building multiple systems/distributing them. You could argue it's the wrong solution, but it's been good enough for so many people that... it's probably fine.