45 ms·
For me, Elixir misses the mark. If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev, I can see the appeal. It's a familiar set dressing. I don't ha
by ux266478 2mo ago
For me, Elixir misses the mark. If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev, I can see the appeal. It's a familiar set dressing. I don't have that background, I much prefer the syntactic structure of Erlang's psuedo-horn clauses. Both for similar familiarity reasons (I knew Prolog before I touched Erlang), as well as a general preference for the simplicity.
- uncircle 2mo agoThe similarity of Ruby and Elixir is only extremely superficial and betrays your lack of familiarity with the language.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- ux266478 2mo agoI didn't imply otherwise, nor is the story different on the Erlang-Prolog axis (actually it's even more pronounced there.) I literally called it "set dressing". Where I think you go off the rails is that you're conflating surface-level things with irrelevance. Which isn't really true, especially in matters of taste. I find this to be a very strange thing to get defensive about. It's not exactly a subtle part of Elixir's history. It was pretty well documented to be born out of the creator's dissatisfaction with concurrency in Ruby, and simultaneously, for a more Ruby-like language on the BEAM. That doesn't mean it's literally Ruby-on-the-BEAM (which was originally attempted, and didn't work out), however mistaking that as cause to dismiss the link between the two and the carry-over appeal for developers is an unsound overcorrection.
- foldr 2mo agoPhoenix is a big part of the appeal of Elixir, independently of the differences between Elixir and Erlang.
- vanderZwan 2mo ago> If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev Millennials catching strays I see.
- scrame 2mo ago> If you're an unc with a background in Ruby or that era of webdev "claude, run 'npm install' for me"