| > Elixir have better syntax because it's familiar. Which syntax is "better" depends on how you measure. I'm a big fan of Erlang's "minimalistic" syntax. It means I might have to write a bit more code, but it also means that the code, once written, is very explicit. > Like wise Elixir is a small language too with added macro (I don't recall Erlang got this) feature. Well, Erlang does have simple macros (-define(MACRO(Var1, Var2), {some_expr, #{ var1 => Var1, var2 => Var2 }}).) but they are nowhere near as powerful as Elixir's system. There is merl (http://erlang.org/doc/man/merl.html) which allows for something quite similar, in particular if it's combined with parse transforms. I haven't used it and haven't seen usage in the wild, though. > Elixir also have better tooling baked in (mix/hex, doc, lint, etc...). That I give you, while rebar3 is already a huge step forward compared to what we had before, mix's out-of-the-box feature-set is really nice. > Also the Erlang community sucks. This is my personal experience but I vividly recall attending a meetup. The group meetup have a discussion about Erlang's adoption and how to get better adoption. I told them Ruby got popular because RoR other wise people would have chose Python and call it a day. Erlang should really have a killer framework like a web framework. Everybody thought it was ridiculous. This is a bit harsh. You can't derive "community sucks" from "the ones at this meetup didn't share my opinion". I don't share it either. I think the main thing holding Erlang back is the current out-of-the-box tooling (rebar3 is not included in the OTP distribution) and its general performance. |