I'm saying this with complete sincerity: WHAT IS IT THAT YOU PEOPLE SEE!? What is the fun? What are you addicted to? Typing and seeing the output? Solving a problem?
I feel like I am missing out on some amazing life altering experience when I see people state that. The same thing I have with the article - what does it mean to love a programming language?
Expressiveness: I could express a solution to a problem with very few lines of code and without the clutter of housekeeping operations like memory management.
Recursion: Erlang properly introduced me to recursion whereas I hadn't encountered it before. This is again related to expressiveness. There is something strangely beautiful about seeing a problem solved using recursion elegantly.
Message passing: when I was trying to figure out how Microsoft's C++ socket classes were implemented and I dug into the code, it turned out there was a hidden window for every socket created and messages were being passed to/from it, but message passing wasn't available anywhere in Visual C++ as a first class construct (at least as far as I remember it). I was overjoyed when I discovered that message passing was a first class citizen in Erlang and how much easier it was to implement concurrent programs than using native threads in C++.
Compared to OO programming in C++ where I was never sure whether I was using inheritance correctly, whether I needed inheritance at all, memory management, difficulty with threads, writing code in Erlang was a breeze.
And the whole support for distributed programming, hot code loading, list comprehensions! I fell in love again with Erlang when I discovered list comprehensions. Man, I could go on.
Also, some languages just really stink— slow compilation times, obscure errors, loads of footguns and require much more care and focus on things which are orthogonal to the problem you’re trying to solve.
And then, one day you discover the chainsaw, and the fact that you should cross cut.
Suddenly cutting wood no longer feels terrible, it's smooth, stuff works the way you expect. Your chainsaw turns out to have features for all kinds of wood and for many different kinds of joinery that you were hand carving before. It turns out that your chainsaw can be used to control an army of chainsaws without having to do anything at all. You just declare it to be so and it works.
Instead of focusing on your tools all day long you find yourself focusing on the thing that you are actually trying to solve. Where you needed 50 people before, now you need 5.
Programming languages stress reusable code, where you get reusable processes (eg interface to the SMSC)in Erlang, which you would need messaging servers in other languages.
As for it being fun and addictive, I'm retired. I can write code in any language I want, or don't write at all, and I choose to write in Elixir.
In that sense, Erlang isn’t really different from any other functional programming except that it also ships with a lot of actor / message passing concurrency dogma which solves a different and equally delightful set of problems (low-bug concurrency) at the same time.
So it’s a double hit of two great ideas in one paradigm.
*Oops, no pun intended.
A good example is mutable state: for a bunch of people, functional languages that enforce immutability has this calming effect, since you know your data isn't mutating where you can't see it. You've been burned by C++ code that's passing references as arguments, and you don't know if the list you received as an argument will be the same list after you've passed it as an argument to a different function. You don't know if you can futz with that list and not make a problem for someone somewhere else.
But for most people, they much prefer how "intuitive" it is to have mutable state, where they just change the thing in front of them to be what they need. This is especially true in the context of for loops vs. recursion: "why can't I just use a for loop and increment a counter!" A lot of Golang folks love that it explicitly rejects functional mapping primitives and "all you need is a for loop."
It's a very personal decision, and while IMO it doesn't really matter for the ultimate business success (usually companies fail because of something that's not tech-related in the least), it does shape _how_ it feels to work on a tech stack, and I'd argue, what kinds of technical problems you run into.
I've fought null pointer exceptions longer than I want to in C# servers and Python code. Usually because we're introspecting into a message that a system sent us, we expect it to have a field on the message, we failed to check for the existance of that field / the field to not be null, and bam null-pointer exception.
Sure, add another guard clause... Every time you run into it. Every time the server crashes and it's a serious problem and someone forgot to set a restart policy on the container... Sometimes you don't know exactly what cascade of messages caused the whole thing to unwind. So tedious. So repetitive.
With GenServers, you've carefully defined that those parts of your system have active, in-memory state, and everything else must be a pure function. Messages come in a FIFO queue to your GenServer.
With pattern-matching, you define exactly what shape of message / fields on the message, and if it doesn't match that, you can either log it, or crash that GenServer.
Which normally would be catastrophic, but since you tied your GenServer to a SupervisionTree with a restart policy (which is trivial to write), if anything happens that you didn't expect, you can Let It Fail. The GenServer crashes and is immediately restarted, with a clean slate, with the correct peer-services in the correct state. Sure, the message that crashed your server was "lost" (there are options to push it to a dead-letter-queue on exit) and you have a bad-state and bad-message to debug in the crash-dump, but your server is still going. It hasn't stopped, it just dropped unexpected messages and has a deterministic recovery pattern to clear all bad-state and start again.
So instead of your message handling code starting with a bunch of defensive sanity checks, with the real meat of the function in the last 5 lines.... you just say "My GenServer is here in this SupervisorTree, I expect an inbound message to look roughly like this, and I will do this with it, done". Suddenly the server will handle the messages it knows how to handle, and everything it cannot handle it will drop on the floor.
Think of this! The server just stays up and keeps going! Anything it cannot handle is not a fatal exception, but a log message. And you didn't have to bend the code into an unnatural shape where you trapped and logged all exceptions and bubbled them up in specific error checks... it's just designed to do it that way out of the box.
And for me, what it comes down to, is, doing powerful things in Erlang/Elixir is trivial where it would be really convoluted in other languages. When applied to the right problem, it genuinely makes a whole class of problems evaporate, and that's addicting.
These are just bombastic claims and empty verbiage which has become "language du jour" in the Interwebs. This came into vogue during the software boom of the 90s when companies started asking for "rah-rah passion" and everybody started making such inane statements to get through interviews.
As for the submitted article, it is just pedestrian (there is nothing in it really) with some pretty posturing/language to sell it.
But some of comments in this thread are informative.
Also this:
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/
For me, there's a dopamine hit in taking a complex problem, and breaking it into simple interacting parts that solve the problem in an elegant way. Overly complex programming languages add lots of incidental complexity that slow down this process. A clear, simple, consistent semantics accelerate this process.
If that doesn't inherently excite you, the life altering experience probably isn't going to happen for you.
I'm a hobbyist high-availability dork, so the idea that I could update my program without interrupting any user of the program was very, very attractive to me. I'm also quite sick in the head and have a life-long torrid love affair with Bash's switch statements, so Erlang's "pattern match to make most decisions" syntax was a huge attracter.
Having said that, I didn't really get Erlang until I had a project for which it and the OTP were a good fit. I needed to build a server for an unfamiliar-to-me protocol, so I expected to regularly have protocol handlers fail due to incorrect implementation. This server would be long-running, so VM startup time was not a problem. This server would perform next-to-no number crunching. This server could be very effectively modeled as a swarm of message-passing processes. The core functionality of the server was best modeled as an FSM.
Erlang's "share nothing, use message passing" design, along with OTP's supervisor and friends kept my server up and running while my protocol handlers exploded because of incorrect or absent handler code, or too-pessimistic assertions about the valid bounds of input data. Hot code reloading let me fix broken code paths (or experiment with non-broken ones) without affecting users of other code paths in the server. [0] The built-in FSM library made it trivial to express the parts of my program that were an FSM as an FSM. Not only did Erlang's syntax satisfy my sick fascination with Bash's switch statements, it permitted me to write nearly all of my server as simple, sequential code and let Erlang/OTP handle the nasty problems of concurrency for me.
Oh yeah, and the extremely high quality of Erlang's documentation was really helpful. In the reference manual for the standard library, the documentation for every single function provided in Erlang/OTP told you the valid types and acceptable ranges/values for both function arguments and return values. They told you which functions would throw, what would be thrown, and under what conditions. They also described what the function did, and -when needed- why it did it. I could be confident that if I programmed according to the docs, then my program would behave as the docs said it would... unlike where documentation for most Web Development stuff leaves you. [1] There's also official documentation about the design of Erlang/OTP and the reasons behind that design. Those docs (along with Learn You Some Erlang) definitely helped me understand Erlang and OTP.
Like I said... if your project isn't a good fit for what Erlang provides, I think you're not going to get what makes Erlang/OTP special. But if it is, there's a very good chance that you will.
[0] Supervisors + hot code reloading made it emotionally really easy to build my server incrementally. Knowing that I didn't have to get the entire protocol right to have a server that would never die was calming. As was knowing that implementation failures (or deliberately unhandled parts of the protocol) would provide me with usually-good diagnostic information, rather than a core dump (or nothing at all(!)).
[1] This was prior to the big redesign of Erlang's docs to ape the style used by HexDocs. Whoever did that redesign very, very clearly did not understand what made Erlang's documentation so good. Switching from EBNF-ish to raw Erlang spec format not only takes up far more vertical space, but adds yet another new thing someone new to Erlang needs to learn. But far, far, far worse is that some of the documentation about the valid ranges of input to functions has been lost.