When I was reading your article my first thought was most people would only read the intro but many don’t even do that before commenting.
Given how prevalent just reading the headline -> immediately posting a preconceived take is, most information is probably communicated through the top comments these days.
It's a great article but calling Erlang's philosophy of 'Let it crash' a pithy, catchy statement that brushes over the complexities of the real world was an unwarranted attack. There's much more to it and with Elixir on top it goes a long way in lightening the cognitive load of error handling and building fault tolerant software.
They aren't perfect tools but they are also not merely misguided academic exercised combined with vapid catch phrases, as the analysis seems to imply.
I have removed the mention of "Let it crash" from that section, and added a clarification for my original intent. I did not mean it as criticism of Erlang or Joe Armstrong, although I 100% understand how it could've been interpreted as such.
Given how prevalent just reading the headline -> immediately posting a preconceived take is, most information is probably communicated through the top comments these days.