4 ms·

There is Elixir [0], with its elegant Ruby-like syntax if that's the issue. [0]: http://www.elixir-lang.org http://www.elixir-lang.org

by mseri 12y ago

mononcqc 12y ago
That's not marketing Erlang, that's marketing Elixir, though. On another note, I disagree with calling the Elixir syntax elegant, but that's purely a matter of taste at this point.
- zaphar 12y ago
  Thats not completely accurate. When people talk about Erlang they are talking about two different things at the same time. 1. Erlang the functional language with a syntax inspired by prolog. 2. OTP and the Erlang Runtime. The first one is an annoyance you grow to tolerate and sometimes even love. The second one makes you a fan the first time you actually need fault tolerance. Elixer gives you the second one and arguably improves on the issues with the first one. All of which to say "Its more nuanced than you seem to want to make it".
  - mononcqc 12y ago
    The distinction between language and runtime is right. I would disagree that Elixir improves issues of Erlang. I see it as plainly different, not a newer, better language on the Erlang VM. It does have the benefit of avoiding a few mistakes Erlang made (order of arguments in the standard library, for example), but for the vast majority of the time I spend developing in Erlang, that's a very minor part of it. The design objectives and decisions of the languages, the general tooling given (i.e. macros), and the approach the community takes to development has a much greater impact into how systems are shaped and built than the actual objective improvements they have done past Erlang mistakes that are the results of 25 years of existence, sealed in place through backwards compatibility promises. These are often not improvements, just a different way of doing it, and whether it's better or not will absolutely depend on the task at hand.
    - zaphar 12y ago
      Item #1 is arguably a subjective thing to measure. When I say Elixir improves on it I mean in the sense that it appeals to the general populace more and therefor has a greater chance of gaining popularity.
  - wcummings 12y ago
    They're talking about them at the same time because you almost never write Erlang w/o using OTP.
- wcummings 12y ago
  For many intents and purposes, they're the same language. BEAM is extremely biased
sparkie 12y ago
Also Lisp Flavored Erlang (http://lfe.io/ http://lfe.io/)
- cordite 12y ago
  A nice landing presentation, but I feel like they are too scared to show a code snippet so they hide it behind a button and a modal overlay.

There is Elixir [0], with its elegant Ruby-like syntax if that's the issue. [0]: http://www.elixir-lang.org http://www.elixir-lang.org

by mseri 12y ago

There is Elixir [0], with its elegant Ruby-like syntax if that's the issue. [0]: http://www.elixir-lang.org http://www.elixir-lang.org

mononcqc 12y ago

That's not marketing Erlang, that's marketing Elixir, though. On another note, I disagree with calling the Elixir syntax elegant, but that's purely a matter of taste at this point.

zaphar 12y ago
Thats not completely accurate. When people talk about Erlang they are talking about two different things at the same time. 1. Erlang the functional language with a syntax inspired by prolog. 2. OTP and the Erlang Runtime. The first one is an annoyance you grow to tolerate and sometimes even love. The second one makes you a fan the first time you actually need fault tolerance. Elixer gives you the second one and arguably improves on the issues with the first one. All of which to say "Its more nuanced than you seem to want to make it".
- mononcqc 12y ago
  The distinction between language and runtime is right. I would disagree that Elixir improves issues of Erlang. I see it as plainly different, not a newer, better language on the Erlang VM. It does have the benefit of avoiding a few mistakes Erlang made (order of arguments in the standard library, for example), but for the vast majority of the time I spend developing in Erlang, that's a very minor part of it. The design objectives and decisions of the languages, the general tooling given (i.e. macros), and the approach the community takes to development has a much greater impact into how systems are shaped and built than the actual objective improvements they have done past Erlang mistakes that are the results of 25 years of existence, sealed in place through backwards compatibility promises. These are often not improvements, just a different way of doing it, and whether it's better or not will absolutely depend on the task at hand.
  - zaphar 12y ago
    Item #1 is arguably a subjective thing to measure. When I say Elixir improves on it I mean in the sense that it appeals to the general populace more and therefor has a greater chance of gaining popularity.
- wcummings 12y ago
  They're talking about them at the same time because you almost never write Erlang w/o using OTP.
wcummings 12y ago
For many intents and purposes, they're the same language. BEAM is extremely biased

sparkie 12y ago

Also Lisp Flavored Erlang (http://lfe.io/ http://lfe.io/)

cordite 12y ago
A nice landing presentation, but I feel like they are too scared to show a code snippet so they hide it behind a button and a modal overlay.