IMO the nice thing about Erlang and Elixir is their foundation of representing data is rock solid. Because data is fully immutable, you get a lot of nice things "for free" (no shared state, reliable serialisation, etc). And then on top of that you can add your interfacey, mutable-ish design with processes, if you want. But you will never have oddities or edge cases with the underlying data.
In contrast with languages like C++ and Java where things are shakey from the ground up. If you can't get an integer type right (looking at you, boxing, or you, implicit type conversions), the rest of the language will always be compensating. It's another layer of annoyances to deal with. You'll be having a nice day coding and then be forced to remember that int is different to Integer and have to change your design for no good reason.
Perhaps you disagree with Erlang's approach, but at least it's solid and thought-out. I'd take that over the C++ or Java mess in most cases.
lmm · 57m ago
I've had thoughts along this line for a while. I think Scala does better than this article gives credit for; case classes are a significant step in the right direction, particularly post-Scala 3 (or with Shapeless in Scala 2) where you have many tools available to treat them as records, and you can distinguish practically between case classes (values) and objects with identity even if in theory they're only syntax sugar. It also offers an Erlang-style actor system if you want one.
In my dream language I'd push this further; case classes should not offer any object identity APIs (essentially the whole of java.lang.Object) and not be allowed to contain non-value classes or mutable fields, and maybe objects should be a bit more decoupled from their state. But for now I wouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
chuzz · 1h ago
Good post, for what is worth Java is slowly and painfully correcting course with features like records and project Valhalla. As with the other language improvements though we will have to live with the tech debt for decades to come…
In contrast with languages like C++ and Java where things are shakey from the ground up. If you can't get an integer type right (looking at you, boxing, or you, implicit type conversions), the rest of the language will always be compensating. It's another layer of annoyances to deal with. You'll be having a nice day coding and then be forced to remember that int is different to Integer and have to change your design for no good reason.
Perhaps you disagree with Erlang's approach, but at least it's solid and thought-out. I'd take that over the C++ or Java mess in most cases.
In my dream language I'd push this further; case classes should not offer any object identity APIs (essentially the whole of java.lang.Object) and not be allowed to contain non-value classes or mutable fields, and maybe objects should be a bit more decoupled from their state. But for now I wouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.