[kevinjcliao]

https://blog.discordapp.com/how-discord-handles-push-request...

Erlang has its uses and Elixir has its uses. Dismissing Elixir's userbase as 'pathetic' is pretty rude and a disservice to a pretty incredible language. See the Discord article where they clearly demonstrate Elixir and Genstage are ready for production and can be used to write performant services.

I get that you really like Erlang and its quirks, but maybe there are more mature ways of expressing this love than calling Elixir users 'pathetic'.

[mnd]

Unrelated to your discussion with the parent, but I just wanted to point out that the fact that a system which was implemented in Elixir and runs on the Erlang virtual machine is able to sustain that traffic (and here I am referring to the link you posted) is and should be regarded as, largely, a quality of the Erlang virtual machine, and only to a very small extent to the programming language that it has been implemented in, if any at all. The fact that a system implemented in Elixir can sustain a large quantity of traffic while running on the Erlang virtual machine does not prove much about Elixir itself, other than the fact that it’s usable; you can implement the exact same system in Erlang also, or any other programming language for that matter. There is no inherent quality of Elixir itself that makes programs handle large amounts of traffic. That’s a quality of the Erlang virtual machine; Elixir is just syntax.

[kevinjcliao]

Thanks for your clarification. I think 'just syntax' is a bit dismissive of the importance that well-designed syntax has on being able to reason clearly in a certain way. Elixir's "just syntax" has made it so easy for me to understand FP concepts like pattern matching and higher order functions. I've struggled with these concepts before while trying to learn Haskell, Erlang and many other FP languages. Does that make me a bad programmer? The parent commenter would certainly think so.

I totally take your point that everything written in Elixir could be written in Erlang. That much is a fact. However, my point in saying they serve different uses is saying that better syntax in itself isn't nothing. If a language enables many people to grasp actor-based concurrency in an easy to understand fashion, can we reduce that to "just syntax"? I guess my point is that introducing syntactic clarity is in itself a massive feature that shouldn't be dismissed.

I hope that further explains my intent!

[mnd]

My point was not that everything which is written in Elixir can be written in Erlang but mostly that using a reference to a system that sustains a large amount of traffic which is implemented in Elixir and runs on top of the Erlang virtual machine as an argument for how incredible Elixir is, is naive at best, as Elixir is just a layer on top of many Erlang libraries and also the Erlang virtual machine. Yes, syntax can matter, but you can discuss that later when you discuss maintainability and other software design and maintenance issues. You cannot discuss syntax and then argue that your program sustains large amounts of traffic; you can, but it’s pointless.

And to answer your first question, although I thought I was very clear that I do not want to take part in your discussion with the parent: no, I do not think that you are a bad programmer for learning Elixir, I think if you were to only learn Elixir, call it a day, and then spread the word of how incredible Elixir is, you would be, however. Programming languages are just that, programming languages. The more you know the better and there is no silver bullet. As you will get back to Haskell you will probably come to appreciate its powers. Also, the fact that you have not grasped Haskell’s syntax when you have first tried does not make it a poor functional programming language and it certainly does not make Elixir a better designed functional programming language. That’s just your perception because Elixir was, for you, easier to learn. The fact that I cannot comprehend particle physics does not necessarily make particle physics a badly designed model.

[kevinjcliao]

Thanks for your reply! All points you make are incredibly valid, but I still have some pushback:

But where would you stop?

If Elixir makes it easier to write fast, concurrent for many people than Erlang, that totally can be discussed. The way you separate developer satisfaction/well-designed syntax from the VM it runs on top of is a separation I dispute.

Obviously these comparisons will never be 100% valid, but I think they make my point: Will you say that Scala is no different (or better) from Java? Will you say that Dart or Elm are no different (or better) from JavaScript? Simply because their underlying architecture is the same?

I think there is some hostility I am sensing from Erlang programmers where there is none given in return. I don't hate Erlang. I'm simply saying a language that can leverage the performance of the Erlang VM shouldn't be dismissed. Again, I never ever said I thought Elixir was better than Erlang. I was just responding to the parent commenter's assertion that all alchemists are pathetic.

Also, I think the implication that may have entered my writing was that because I personally found Elixir easier to learn (and it would be difficult to argue that I am alone in this), it is somehow a better language than Haskell, Erlang, and many other FP languages out there. If that was the implication you drew, I apologise for my a mistake in my writing. Since I learned Elixir, I'm now taking a course in Haskell at my college to better understand these programming languages. Just because I called Elixir incredible, doesn't mean I believe it's the end all be all language!

Again, thanks for your comment. I learned a lot from it.

[mnd]

Why would you stop learning?

You misunderstand me. I did not say that Elixir is not different from Erlang, what I said already two times and this is the third time is that you cannot send me to some case study about how code deployed on the Erlang virtual machine performs well at high traffic and imply that the performance seen is a quality of Elixir, because it is not. Can we agree on this? That is the one and only point that I was trying to make, and if you read carefully and want to understand I think I have expressed that thought in a quite clear way. It is also a very factual truth, not a subjective matter, when we discuss syntax preference we do not discuss throughput because throughput is not a quality of the syntax. Even less so in the case of Elixir which runs on top of the Erlang virtual machine. Performance could be discussed as a function of syntax if, for instance, Elixir compiled to virtual machine instructions for the Erlang virtual machine and then had its own layer of optimizations etc. and then there would be some inherent quality of the Elixir syntax which makes those optimizations easier. But the fact of the matter is that Elixir compiles to Erlang which is then compiled to instructions for the virtual machine. Yes, Elixir it’s just syntax, I suggest you read its source code and not take my word for it. There is nothing incredible that Elixir has invented, it just looks like Ruby which made it easier to read by ex-Ruby programmers, that’s all.

Yes, of course I am biased to have a problem towards Elixir programmers making extraordinary claims when they lack cultural knowledge and brag about things that have not been invented by Elixir in any way but are qualities of a system which they very much enjoy criticizing in ignorance. I have even heard Elixir programmers talking about a so-called Elixir virtual machine which I find amazing and tells me a lot about their community and culture.