[pmontra]

He probably means that an Erlang process is equivalent to an object and message passing among processes is equivalent to method calls.

In my experience with Elixir, objects, method calls and mutable data are easier to write than processes, messages and immutable data. It's not the mutable and immutable part, it's more about the boiler plate of spawning processes, receiving messages and matching them to dispatch them to the appropriate functions. Ruby's and Python's class and method definitions are much more compact and less error prone. Unfortunately they are not as good at parallelism. I wonder if it could be possible to have an OO language with an automatic Erlang process per object, automatic immutable data (just don't let reassign values to variables, like Erlang), and a way to define supervisor trees.

[jrobn]

There is Pony (http://www.ponylang.org).

[pmontra]

Interesting language, thanks. What's the amount of adoption to date?

[jrobn]

Close to 0%. It's still in development. I would love to see this development into a high performance alternative / complement to erlang.

[Jtsummers]

Yes. In the same sense that closures and objects are equivalent.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent

[eggy]

Or use LFE - Lisp Flavoured Erlang by one of the designers of Erlang, Robert Virding. All the BEAM/OTP goodness with the meta-programming and homoiconicity of Lisp. Worth checking out.

[pramodliv1]

>> I wonder if it could be possible to have an OO language with an automatic Erlang process per object, automatic immutable data (just don't let reassign values to variables, like Erlang), and a way to define supervisor trees.

Is it possible to implement it using the metaprogramming features in Elixir?