[valenterry]

> Adding types is indeed the last piece to the puzzle to bring even more confidence in the code we ship.

This is the hard missing piece for me and why I'm looking curiously over to Gleam. Coming from a language with a very powerful and useful statical typesystem, I just can never go back to something like Erlang or Elixir in my life. :-(

[AlchemistCamp]

Go back? Have you ever worked on a significant project in either Erlang or Elixir? If so, what issues did you experience?

[valenterry]

This was meant for the statical typesystem. I've worked without statical typesystem in other languages, yes. (never professionally on the BEAM though)

[AlchemistCamp]

This seems to be the case for 99% of people I've noticed worrying about types for Elixir.

I've worked with a wide spectrum of type systems and none of the things that caused issues for me due to typing in large JS or Ruby projects ever did in Elixir. The schema-based structs and pattern-matching make a huge difference. I don't feel quite as confident of a poorly tested Elixir code base as one written in Rust, but I'd take it over one written in TypeScript or Obj-C any day of the week.

[arrowsmith]

This is my experience too. Elixir's lack of static types never caused me nearly as many problems as they have in other languages; it's surprising how little I've missed a static type system. I wrote about it here:

https://phoenixonrails.com/blog/you-might-not-need-gradual-t...

[AlchemistCamp]

Ah, yes. You pointed out immutability in that post, which also makes a significant difference!

[valenterry]

Have you ever worked in a language where pretty much everything is immutable AND you have a very powerful static typesystem though? (so not Java and also not Rust).

If not, maybe it's hard to understand where I come from. On top of that, people are different. Maybe Elixir is the right thing for you, but still not for me as I'm more prone to typos and such kind of small errors.