> Golang is basically just more concise Java.
That is exactly how it was sold.
A safe C, or a nicer simpler Java.
Nobody cared about Erlang back then and nobody does today.
I write Erlang for a living.
That is exactly how it was sold.
A safe C, or a nicer simpler Java.
Nobody cared about Erlang back then and nobody does today.
I write Erlang for a living.
It's never been "safe C" because it's garbage collected. Java is truly the comp because it's a great Grug language.
I also wrote some Erlang in the past, I really enjoy it and I was sad that Go didn't borrow more.
Nobody may have known they cared about Erlang, but those features sure made people pay attention.
Ironically, Java was sold as a "nicer simpler C++".
I think this is incredibly correct and obviously personally true for you but I'd like to add one more thing from the peanut gallery.
No one really needs Erlang either. Turns out most problems are just fine not being modeled in the way that Erlang wants to model problems.
Not that I think Erlang manages to be a nail gun; it has enough idiosyncrasies that the comparison is not terribly accurate. Still, “need” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Yeah it was a bit vague -- I should have said something more like "not many developers/teams/companies need telecom level uptime and resilience enforced at the single system level". In reality, most groups have solved this by redundancy and building multiple systems/distributing them. You could argue it's the wrong solution, but it's been good enough for so many people that... it's probably fine.