- Not being statically typed also makes it a bit more difficult to refactor
the codebase. Would you be able to refactor a 1 million line Rust code base
more easily or a 100,000 line erlang code base (even if you have used
Dialyzer). My money is on Rust.
I have found that refactoring erlang is NOT like refactoring code in other languages, non trivial refactoring in rust is a LOT more complicated however I do understand the fuzzy feelings you get when type-safe code compiles correctly.
Most erlang refactoring that I see needing to be done is simply reapplying a different pattern to the gen_server or distributing load differently. I believe if refactoring is a "complex problem", the development team had not designed with OTP behaviors in mind. My view may be because I have limited experience in refactoring my erlang due to being a solo developer and my mind is stuck in OTP land, please correct me if you've experienced it differently, I feel that you're perhaps painting the picture a little unfairly there.
If programmers need type-safeness for BEAM and I believe Gleam Language supplies the security blanket that other languages provide. From my limited experience it does NOT provide any additional "speed" (I expect there are not many compiler optimisations that end up down on the BEAM level) however it does give you that level of confidence that you're not going to be passing garbage data through your functions.
I haven't taken anything you have said as a personal (or even against erlang), thank you for the discussion points.
Comments
I have found that refactoring erlang is NOT like refactoring code in other languages, non trivial refactoring in rust is a LOT more complicated however I do understand the fuzzy feelings you get when type-safe code compiles correctly.
Most erlang refactoring that I see needing to be done is simply reapplying a different pattern to the gen_server or distributing load differently. I believe if refactoring is a "complex problem", the development team had not designed with OTP behaviors in mind. My view may be because I have limited experience in refactoring my erlang due to being a solo developer and my mind is stuck in OTP land, please correct me if you've experienced it differently, I feel that you're perhaps painting the picture a little unfairly there.
If programmers need type-safeness for BEAM and I believe Gleam Language supplies the security blanket that other languages provide. From my limited experience it does NOT provide any additional "speed" (I expect there are not many compiler optimisations that end up down on the BEAM level) however it does give you that level of confidence that you're not going to be passing garbage data through your functions.
I haven't taken anything you have said as a personal (or even against erlang), thank you for the discussion points.