It seems that the more I read, the more I find Elixir users speaking about all the ways that Elixir is not good for x, y, and z use cases.
Usually these x, y, and z use cases are not good because “Elixir is not fast enough for raw computation” or something of that sort.
In my mind, Elixir seems like more of an investment. Either:
1. The Actor model is the wave of the future in terms of program design and structure, and investing in Elixir would be a very smart move if even to wrap your head around the actor concepts
2. The Actor model is the wave of the present and is merely the best way to structure distributed apps that we currently have
After all, I’ve heard from people that Actors are not necessarily the best in terms of code clarity OR efficiency. CSP or STM could be better in this area even.
Now, I know that someone will say “Erlang isn’t technically an implementation of actors”. That’s fine, but it’s close enough.
The question I’m getting at is are Elixir users/contributors dedicated to the vision of #1 or do they see Elixir as more of #2. I assume that #2 is more likely based upon the way people in this community generally talk.
- “Elixir is not good for GUI programming, use something else”. It seems to me that Elixir and the messaging passing system would be ideal for GUI programming. Why just write this off as something not worth pursuing?
- “Elixir is not good at number crunching, use something else”. Okay, so why not teach/show people how to use the FFI to call out to number crunching C libraries instead? Why abandon Elixir all together?
You get the picture.
tl;dr - Do you think people are drinking the “Polyglot Programmer” kool-aid a little bit too much rather than being excited about Elixir’s future?