I looked at it, even bought a couple books. A guy here at work was a huge booster for it, and used it in some small piece of production code. It looked cool, an

I looked at it, even bought a couple books. A guy here at work was a huge booster for it, and used it in some small piece of production code. It looked cool, and I love parallel and distributed processing, so the idea of 'fail fast' appealed to me because of how it seemed to simplify a lot of thinking about such things. Hot swapping sounds awesome. But 1) I don't currently do much that requires any of that. 2) I don't want to learn a completely different 'kind' of language just to hit one pain point. 3) Resources are quite limited (re the website, training, books) 4) and this is the biggee: I just don't want to do functional programming. Our Erlang booster? Want to know how much time he sometimes spent on mailing lists and such asking "how do you do X"? I mean for pretty basic stuff. I get the value of functional programming and immutability ("oh no you don't" you'll respond, but bear with me), but in the end it is too high a price to pay FOR ME. I work in imperative languages, I am comfortable in them, I can't get away from them (I need C++ for speed, for example), I'm just not going to take on a language that kicks my legs out from under me like that. Y'all can argue about the finer points of functional vs whatever, but I'll abstain. I'm interested in solving my problems, and the imperative model works very well for my brain and needs. So, for me, an interesting toy. I'm 47 and don't have time to chase 'yet another language' which is all this is for me. Now, if I was trying to solve issues like the ones that got Armstrong to write Erlang in the first place, perhaps I'd revisit it. But as it is? No. No time. Not enough return on the investment.