> the benefits of the concurrency model described in the original article can probably be achieved in peoples' existing/preferred dev env.
No, they can't. This has been well explained elsewhere. You'd have to rework the language/dev environment down to at least the C level if not assembly.
>It's easier and faster to look into that then to throw what you have under the bus for erlang.
No, it is slower and harder.
People think Erlang is difficult simply because the syntax is weird. Spend a couple weeks learning it and you'll be up to speed.
I think people are scared off by the syntax and so are trying to rationalize that they don't really need erlang.
It is possible to replicate erlang elsewhere, but you'd have to replicate erlang. You can't just add a library to ruby and get it.
The problem with the syntax isn't that it's weird. It's just ugly. Even Perl and C++ look nicer. It's the 1998-geocities-site-full-of-animated-gifs of programming languages.
I thought this way about Erlang code at first too, but after a short time I came around and now I think it can be extremely elegant and even beautiful.
Totally disagree. Erlang is odd, but you have to understand what you're getting with that. Variable unification, etc., if very powerful (kind of like Haskell's pattern matching but a bit more powerful).
No, they can't. This has been well explained elsewhere. You'd have to rework the language/dev environment down to at least the C level if not assembly.
>It's easier and faster to look into that then to throw what you have under the bus for erlang.
No, it is slower and harder.
People think Erlang is difficult simply because the syntax is weird. Spend a couple weeks learning it and you'll be up to speed.
I think people are scared off by the syntax and so are trying to rationalize that they don't really need erlang.
It is possible to replicate erlang elsewhere, but you'd have to replicate erlang. You can't just add a library to ruby and get it.