That's mostly it.
Personally I find Elixir's syntax confusing. For example:
Losing the ; and . function endings from Erlang you can put same-named functions throughout your module. I tried doing
def create
def handle(:create)
def update
def handle(:update)
But the compiler warns. So that loss isn't helpful.
Atoms require a : because variable names are lowercase.
Uppercase variable names and lowercase module names is easier to read in Erlang.
The syntactic sugar is too clever for readability imo.
The package management through mix is decent. I used to use an erlang.mk file, looking at hex it looks like the Erlang ecosystem is quite evolved.
Phoenix + Ecto seem to be very actively maintained, useful if you're writing web apps.
When I tried Cowboy a few years ago some of the documentation was out of date, so that's a point in Elixir's favor.
Losing the ; and . function endings from Erlang you can put same-named functions throughout your module. I tried doing
def create def handle(:create)
def update def handle(:update)
But the compiler warns. So that loss isn't helpful.
Atoms require a : because variable names are lowercase.
Uppercase variable names and lowercase module names is easier to read in Erlang.
The syntactic sugar is too clever for readability imo.
The package management through mix is decent. I used to use an erlang.mk file, looking at hex it looks like the Erlang ecosystem is quite evolved.
Phoenix + Ecto seem to be very actively maintained, useful if you're writing web apps.
When I tried Cowboy a few years ago some of the documentation was out of date, so that's a point in Elixir's favor.