| It's worth noting that the pattern you describe here is an emergent property of programming languages that changes with the era: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html Sadly, the culture of programming language choice in commercial contexts has changed a lot in twenty years, but you can replace python with rust or elixir because programming language choice is a good proxy to understanding insight, intuition, and intelligence. I like python, but if the broad preference mattered, we'd all be running J2EE apps today. My reasons for choosing python around Y2K were as philosophical then as they are now. Where your argument goes awry is that what matters is how the programming language catalyzes better interdisciplinary team communication. Code tells a story that, the easier it is to read, the clearer the story gets, and that pays unforeseen dividends in development, deployment, debugging, and distribution. Computer optimization is straightforward by comparison to scaling human commercial endeavors. “Programs are meant to be read by humans and only incidentally for computers to execute.” ― Donald Knuth |
Programs are meant to be read by humans. Which is why Python and the bunch are so widely popular across foreign contexts.
Elixir is hard in that context because it introduces a lot of paradigms.
I have had Elixir teams but there is a big big big difference between someone who has done a Phoenix tutorial and someone who understands supervisor trees and genservers.
There are much better languages than Elixir for communicating intention in programs in a way that a junior dev can come in and understand. Especially if you are working with engineers in foreign countries with language barriers.