> 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 h

> 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.