←back to thread

638 points wut42 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.424s | source
Show context
arrowsmith ◴[] No.44328363[source]
Ah man I'm really happy to see this and excited to try it out.

As an Elixir enthusiast I've been worried that Elixir would fall behind because the LLMs don't write it as well as they write bigger languages like Python/JS. So I'm really glad to see such active effort to rectify this problem.

We're in safe hands.

replies(12): >>44328630 #>>44328683 #>>44328727 #>>44328801 #>>44328898 #>>44329433 #>>44329534 #>>44329569 #>>44329604 #>>44329853 #>>44330513 #>>44331985 #
mrcwinn ◴[] No.44328727[source]
Worried it might fall behind… further? I love LiveView, Phoenix, Elixir, OTP. But the ecosystem is a wasteland of abandoned packages.

If Phoenix.new helps solve that problem, I’m all for the effort. But otherwise, the sole focus of the community leaders of Elixir should be squarely and exactly focused on creating the incentives and dynamics to grow the base.

Compare, for example, Mastra in TypeScript or PydanticAI in Python. Elixir? Nothing.

Not here to bash. It’s more just a disappointment because otherwise I think nothing comes close.

replies(3): >>44328821 #>>44328935 #>>44332142 #
uncircle ◴[] No.44328821[source]
All languages are a wasteland of abandoned packages, i.e. there is a very long tail of stuff no one has maintained for years. It’s all relative to the mindshare. For its size, Elixir is doing quite well.
replies(2): >>44329174 #>>44329938 #
erichocean ◴[] No.44329174[source]
Most languages require maintenance.

Some languages—Clojure is a good example—have packages from 10 years ago, entirely unmaintained, that still work great because no maintenance is needed.

replies(2): >>44329204 #>>44329261 #
spiderice ◴[] No.44329261[source]
In my experience, Elixir is very much on that end of the spectrum as well. I'm wondering if GGP just considers packages that don't have updates for 6 months as "unmaintained" or "dead" because they come from Javascript world where everything is, well... you know.
replies(2): >>44333157 #>>44340518 #
1. debo_ ◴[] No.44333157[source]
Broken and deprecated from inception?
replies(1): >>44354687 #
2. weego ◴[] No.44354687[source]
Fragmented, 'not developed here, and 'only I can create the one standard everyone needs'?