7 ms·

I'm currently learning erlang/elixir and I'm really enjoying the language constructs. I had originally taken a Programming Language Paradigms class in college

I'm currently learning erlang/elixir and I'm really enjoying the language constructs. I had originally taken a Programming Language Paradigms class in college with racket, and I really didn't appreciate functional ideas(i.e. syntax is my excuse). I'm now a really big fan of functional language idioms. Anyone interested should try the futurelearn class, https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/functional-programming-erlang https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/functional-programming-e....

Grimm1 6y ago
I was in the same boat until discovering elixir/erlang it has by far been the most approachable functional language for me and it has been a gateway drug of sorts into experimenting with ocaml and various lisps. I personally think elixir is really special and an amazing fit for any project that needs high IO concurrency.
- unvs 6y ago
  Agreed! I found learning Elixir to be a great gateway to learn Erlang as well. When I first tried learning Erlang (before Elixir was released), it became a bit too much to wrap my head around. It was a lot easier when I had gotten the fundamentals of FP down through Elixir, though!
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Yes definitely, I would have never even bothered with Erlang before using Elixir and having it introduce me in a friendly way to Erlang, which is a shame because honestly the EVM and OTP are amazingly strong at what they both do.
- dnautics 6y ago
  IMO erlang (and arguably even more, elixir) is "functional for the working programmer". It doesn't drown itself in academic abstractions, uses functional programming as a tool to guardrail you from mistakes (in the same way that C guards the programmer from making asm mistakes), with escape hatches that are battle-tested and justified based on decades of experience. I would say the only other functional language that has the same bent is Julia, which is "functional for the working scientist". It makes different choices about where to expose state, understandable, since scientific computing has different tradeoffs from systems programming.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Yeah I think that's a great way to frame it, historically one of the turn offs for me with FP was that it was overly academic when I am much more about how practical a tool the language is for what I'm trying to accomplish. Elixir was definitely the first FP that felt that way for me. That said I have grown an appreciation for more esoteric languages and enjoy seeing the way they handle various problems it's just likely they'll never have a place in my toolkit.
  - Cyph0n 6y ago
    I think Scala is the ultimate "gateway" FP language, for better or worse. Kotlin would probably meet the requirements, though I've never used it.
mcintyre1994 6y ago
On the Elixir/OTP side I've really enjoyed this course too: https://pragmaticstudio.com/elixir https://pragmaticstudio.com/elixir They have a current discount code LIVEVIEW (not affiliate), which is advertised on their currently free early access Phoenix live view course.
skrebbel 6y ago
I never understood why people rave so much about functional programming wrt Erlang/Elixir, when its functional programming is clearly only a means to an end (fast and safe message passing requires immutable data, which requires FP) and not a driving design goal in its own right. I mean, unlike in typical hard FP languages like Haskell or Elm, mutable state is rampant in your average Elixir app, it's just spread out across many (global singleton) little processes. Only inside a process you're doing "true" FP but given how small the average process is in scope, in practice the only real big difference is that you can't to an `i++` style for loop. Oh no! But once you leave the process boundary, and often even before it, all bets are off. The amount of Elixir forum messages I've read that go "you can't do X at that point, because Y hasn't completed yet" is nuts. Eg you can't broadcast in a phoenix channel `join` because the channel hasn't been fully initialized yet. So you send yourself an :after_join message and do the broadcast in there. I don't know about you but to me this feels a lot more like C++ than like Haskell. Or consider the library module Agent which is exactly identical in semantics to a global singleton variable in an OO/imperative language. It's just a blob of data that you can get or set. Now, I don't think any of these are disadvantages. I did mostly C# and JavaScript before Elixir, so I'm used to the occasional mutable state flying around. But I'll never understand that people like Elixir for being FP. You just get such a small subset of the usual advantages of FP that it feels like an implementation detail. There's lots of advantages, but freedom from thinking about state isn't one of them.
- brokencode 6y ago
  If you look closely enough at Haskell, you’ll realize that it also can have a lot of mutable state. Haskell just puts state into various monads and STM to make its functions pure. You can even spawn numerous isolated threads, all with their own state, and have them communicate with one another like you do in Elixir. It does provide a lot of structure and guarantees compared to your standard imperative language, but I assure you mutable state is still there. To be clear, the Elm model of putting everything into a big tree and and transforming that at every user input is very unusual among even FP languages, and is not the model typically used in Haskell. This might be what you are thinking of. Edit: I also want to point out that Elixir processes can be registered globally to act as singletons, but by default you can spawn any number of agents or other processes at runtime, meaning they are not singletons.
AlchemistCamp 6y ago
Interesting. Is FutureLearn something analogous to Coursera and edX?
- moviedo 6y ago
  Yes, very much the same as Coursera. Almost 1 to 1.
morty_s 6y ago
Same. Or similar, it’s taken longer than it should for me to appreciate the functional paradigm. Rust and Scheme have been gateway drugs ha. I found I really like OCaml-y languages. Now, I’m very interested in Erlang (and to some degree elixir). I’m learning as much as I can about Erlang and the ecosystem; I’m trying to answer the question, “why isn’t Erlang more popular?” Any guesses? Reasons? (syntax aside)
- pdimitar 6y ago
  I might sound bitter but after about 3.5 years with Elixir my answer is very simple and boils down to: Habit, confirmation bias, sunk cost fallacy. Namely: people have gotten a lot of battle scars by working with what pays their bills -- PHP, Ruby, Python, C#, Java -- and they refuse to look at an alternative because that would render their huge time and energy investment moot (in their eyes at least; I don't see why this has to be the case but plenty of people have been adamant about this without giving an explanation). I've only become a better programmer since I adopted Elixir but I never stopped using other languages. All of that plus what PG calls "the middlebrow dismissal" are the main reasons IMO. People are just too set in their ways.
  - rad_gruchalski 6y ago
    I've got those scars but I still find erlang refreshing when working with it. Unfortunately, as software engineers, we work in groups and there are many people having these scars. However, the erlang experience changes one forever.
    - pdimitar 6y ago
      As you said, unfortunately programming turned out to be quite the tribalistic activity indeed. I got severely disheartened that 2-3 casual mentions of Elixir were enough for several people in this thread to attack and quickly stereotype me. I think I'll just keep quiet, or at least not mention what I work with. This seems to get the message across much better.
empyrean 6y ago
Did you go to Northeastern? Glad to see a fellow Husky in the wild!
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
One of the really nice things about shared-nothing concurrency is that it scales to multiple machines. The same code that works locally will work across a data center. Along the same lines, shared-nothing tends to scale better as you add cores. With lock based programming, as you add cores, many times your contention increases minimizing the benefits of the additional cores.

Grimm1 6y ago

I was in the same boat until discovering elixir/erlang it has by far been the most approachable functional language for me and it has been a gateway drug of sorts into experimenting with ocaml and various lisps. I personally think elixir is really special and an amazing fit for any project that needs high IO concurrency.

unvs 6y ago
Agreed! I found learning Elixir to be a great gateway to learn Erlang as well. When I first tried learning Erlang (before Elixir was released), it became a bit too much to wrap my head around. It was a lot easier when I had gotten the fundamentals of FP down through Elixir, though!
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Yes definitely, I would have never even bothered with Erlang before using Elixir and having it introduce me in a friendly way to Erlang, which is a shame because honestly the EVM and OTP are amazingly strong at what they both do.
dnautics 6y ago
IMO erlang (and arguably even more, elixir) is "functional for the working programmer". It doesn't drown itself in academic abstractions, uses functional programming as a tool to guardrail you from mistakes (in the same way that C guards the programmer from making asm mistakes), with escape hatches that are battle-tested and justified based on decades of experience. I would say the only other functional language that has the same bent is Julia, which is "functional for the working scientist". It makes different choices about where to expose state, understandable, since scientific computing has different tradeoffs from systems programming.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Yeah I think that's a great way to frame it, historically one of the turn offs for me with FP was that it was overly academic when I am much more about how practical a tool the language is for what I'm trying to accomplish. Elixir was definitely the first FP that felt that way for me. That said I have grown an appreciation for more esoteric languages and enjoy seeing the way they handle various problems it's just likely they'll never have a place in my toolkit.
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  I think Scala is the ultimate "gateway" FP language, for better or worse. Kotlin would probably meet the requirements, though I've never used it.

mcintyre1994 6y ago

On the Elixir/OTP side I've really enjoyed this course too: https://pragmaticstudio.com/elixir https://pragmaticstudio.com/elixir They have a current discount code LIVEVIEW (not affiliate), which is advertised on their currently free early access Phoenix live view course.

skrebbel 6y ago

I never understood why people rave so much about functional programming wrt Erlang/Elixir, when its functional programming is clearly only a means to an end (fast and safe message passing requires immutable data, which requires FP) and not a driving design goal in its own right. I mean, unlike in typical hard FP languages like Haskell or Elm, mutable state is rampant in your average Elixir app, it's just spread out across many (global singleton) little processes. Only inside a process you're doing "true" FP but given how small the average process is in scope, in practice the only real big difference is that you can't to an `i++` style for loop. Oh no! But once you leave the process boundary, and often even before it, all bets are off. The amount of Elixir forum messages I've read that go "you can't do X at that point, because Y hasn't completed yet" is nuts. Eg you can't broadcast in a phoenix channel `join` because the channel hasn't been fully initialized yet. So you send yourself an :after_join message and do the broadcast in there. I don't know about you but to me this feels a lot more like C++ than like Haskell. Or consider the library module Agent which is exactly identical in semantics to a global singleton variable in an OO/imperative language. It's just a blob of data that you can get or set. Now, I don't think any of these are disadvantages. I did mostly C# and JavaScript before Elixir, so I'm used to the occasional mutable state flying around. But I'll never understand that people like Elixir for being FP. You just get such a small subset of the usual advantages of FP that it feels like an implementation detail. There's lots of advantages, but freedom from thinking about state isn't one of them.

brokencode 6y ago
If you look closely enough at Haskell, you’ll realize that it also can have a lot of mutable state. Haskell just puts state into various monads and STM to make its functions pure. You can even spawn numerous isolated threads, all with their own state, and have them communicate with one another like you do in Elixir. It does provide a lot of structure and guarantees compared to your standard imperative language, but I assure you mutable state is still there. To be clear, the Elm model of putting everything into a big tree and and transforming that at every user input is very unusual among even FP languages, and is not the model typically used in Haskell. This might be what you are thinking of. Edit: I also want to point out that Elixir processes can be registered globally to act as singletons, but by default you can spawn any number of agents or other processes at runtime, meaning they are not singletons.

AlchemistCamp 6y ago

Interesting. Is FutureLearn something analogous to Coursera and edX?

moviedo 6y ago
Yes, very much the same as Coursera. Almost 1 to 1.

morty_s 6y ago

Same. Or similar, it’s taken longer than it should for me to appreciate the functional paradigm. Rust and Scheme have been gateway drugs ha. I found I really like OCaml-y languages. Now, I’m very interested in Erlang (and to some degree elixir). I’m learning as much as I can about Erlang and the ecosystem; I’m trying to answer the question, “why isn’t Erlang more popular?” Any guesses? Reasons? (syntax aside)

pdimitar 6y ago
I might sound bitter but after about 3.5 years with Elixir my answer is very simple and boils down to: Habit, confirmation bias, sunk cost fallacy. Namely: people have gotten a lot of battle scars by working with what pays their bills -- PHP, Ruby, Python, C#, Java -- and they refuse to look at an alternative because that would render their huge time and energy investment moot (in their eyes at least; I don't see why this has to be the case but plenty of people have been adamant about this without giving an explanation). I've only become a better programmer since I adopted Elixir but I never stopped using other languages. All of that plus what PG calls "the middlebrow dismissal" are the main reasons IMO. People are just too set in their ways.
- rad_gruchalski 6y ago
  I've got those scars but I still find erlang refreshing when working with it. Unfortunately, as software engineers, we work in groups and there are many people having these scars. However, the erlang experience changes one forever.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    As you said, unfortunately programming turned out to be quite the tribalistic activity indeed. I got severely disheartened that 2-3 casual mentions of Elixir were enough for several people in this thread to attack and quickly stereotype me. I think I'll just keep quiet, or at least not mention what I work with. This seems to get the message across much better.

empyrean 6y ago

Did you go to Northeastern? Glad to see a fellow Husky in the wild!

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

One of the really nice things about shared-nothing concurrency is that it scales to multiple machines. The same code that works locally will work across a data center. Along the same lines, shared-nothing tends to scale better as you add cores. With lock based programming, as you add cores, many times your contention increases minimizing the benefits of the additional cores.