>
This is rich, coming from someone who claimed that anyone who wants a type system in elixir hasn't actually used elixir.You may want to read my original post more carefully. I said most people who complain about the lack of static typing haven't actually used it. Obviously there are some, like you, who have experience with the language and dislike the lack of static typing. And that is fine.
I mean, you only need to casually browse HN threads about new languages to find posts along the lines of "this looks interesting, but the lack of static typing means I probably won't use it." Instead of taking a holistic view of the language and its merits and researching its design choices and trade-offs, they adopt a dogmatic mindset and dismiss it outright.
>>This is the most common reaction within the elixir community, to assume that anyone who doesn't put the language on a pedestal dislikes it or hates it.
No, that's just me, and it was a figure of speech. Elixir community is very mature and welcoming, and most people in it come from other languages, and are able to objectively discuss the language, its merits and shortcomings. The post I linked in my OP is a great example.
>>Elixir is useful for shuffling data from point A to point B... That usefulness has its limits, that's it.
I mean, again, that's just your opinion, and it's a simplistic one. I obviously don't know the depth and breadth of your experience (and won't make assumptions about it, like you did about mine), but Elixir is useful for, and excels at, more things than simply "shuffling data". That is why there is so much excitement for it: the use cases it enables, and the elegance and simplicity with which it enables them, are nearly unparalleled. The lack of static typing does not change this fact, even if it can make certain things a bit more cumbersome towards the extreme end of the project size and complexity spectrum.
