> writing Elixir is like writing Erlang

I wrote both Elixir and Erlang code. Erlang is just useless to me as a programming language; it has many great ideas though. I love the idea of being able to think in terms of immortal, re-usable, safe objects (Erlang does not call these objects, but to me this is OOP by Alan Kay's definition. I don't use e. g. the java definition for OOP.)

Elixir built on that and made Erlang code optional, meaning people could write more pleasent code. And here it succeeded. I am not sure why Elixir succumbed to type madness now, but the comment that "writing Elixir is like writing Erlang", is just simply not true.

Elixir is significantly better than Erlang with regard to writing code. José Valim got inspiration for Elixir from ruby, to some extent.

You're taking my comment way too literally. I'm basically just making a syntax comparison. Obviously Rust is not at all like Gleam in many ways either. It's just statically typed and has a similar syntax.

Why do you find Erlang useless, you just don't like the syntax?

I agree that actor languages are the purest form of OOP as Alan Kay has expressed it. And unlike Smalltalk, Erlang just accepts that some things are naturally functions, not messages.