Comparing Elixir and Go

The Erlang VM is "reduction"-scheduled. This means that the given Erlang process currently running on a scheduler thread can get pre-empted, but only as a result of executing a call/return instruction. (Effectively, the pre-emption is a check inside the implementation of the call/return opcode.) As long as you don't execute any call/returns (don't call functions and don't return from your own function), your function body can run as long as it likes.

This is a design choice: because processes won't be pre-empted "in the middle" of a function, any Erlang process can feel safe executing an instruction that calls into native code, while not having to worry that that native code could itself be pre-empted and leave dirty state in the Erlang process's heap while some other process gets scheduled and tries to then message or introspect that process. It gives you a lot of leeway "for free."

So how does Erlang ensure that processes don't hog a core forever, given that you could theoretically just write a loop that spins forever? Well, in Erlang, you can't write a loop. Instead of loops, you have tail-calls with explicit accumulators, ala Lisp. Not because they make Erlang a better language to write in. Not at all. Instead, because they allow for the operational/architectural decision of reduction-scheduling. Without loops in the language, every function body will execute for only a finite amount of time before hitting one of those call/return instructions, and thus activating the reduction-checker.

The Erlang "platform" has been shaped around the choices of how to best construct a production runtime that gives you "hard things" (like calling into native-code libraries while maintaining thread-safety) for free. Or rather, you could say that where everyone else pays these costs when they hit the particular problem, Erlang pays the cost up-front in the design of the language+platform and how you're forced to code at all times, in order to make these hard things easy.

The same is true of so many other Erlang things:

- how synchronous messaging has to be implemented on top of asynchronous messaging with expected reply-refs and timeouts, so as to make the sender process, rather than the receiver process, be the thing that defaults to crashing if the receiver doesn't recognize the message;

- how OTP-framework code has to be structured as delegate functions that return to the framework, so that the framework can "be there" in each process to handle hot code upgrades and process hibernation;

- how sockets either block (when {active, once}), or will saturate a process with packet messages (if just active) until that process crashes on overload--because the network listener is a separate part of the runtime that lives in a hot loop and wants to just be given a place to stuff packets into, and isn't allowed to do anything that's not an O(1) operation, like expanding the size of a process's message inbox;

etc.

Erlang is not a programming language in the sense that other languages are. Erlang was not designed from the language in. Erlang (ERTS) is a runtime, and was designed from the runtime out, with Erlang being effectively a pure side-effect: the language that ended up being required to interact with the features of the ERTS runtime.

Of course, you can also go back and apply some design sense to the language, and then you get something like Elixir. But, despite large visual differences "in the small", your large Elixir app will end up looking very much like a large Erlang app. And this is because a large part of what you're doing in an ERTS language is not programming using the language, but rather weaving together the features of the runtime. (Contrast: using DirectX vs. OpenGL to manipulate the GPU. Two very different APIs, but one "runtime" they're both speaking to, consisting of features like shaders et al.)

That's true, but for application programming. For the server side there are other considerations. WhatsApp can get away with using Erlang for example, and still get the sweet billions.