Thanks for all of your support so far! This is a new kind of book for this publisher, and we need you. Can you help us get the word out?.

Join me for a 2 day training @CodeBEAMio!. Be ready to code. You’ll build a nontrivial application from the inside out. When you’re done, you’ll have a better understanding of the main software development patterns people use in Elixir every day.

Here's what I told my daughter this morning. "I am not going to sugar coat it. This will be hard, but we raised you for a time such as this. It is our time now. Time to be a place for hospitality. Time to seek out the vulnerable and lonely. Time to be good neighbors. You are.

RT @JEG2: I enjoyed this even-handed review of the Elixir book that I wrote with @redrapids, Designing Elixir Systems with OTP: https://t.….

With all of this.

To me, this is magical, and incredibly important. I am humbled to be along for this ride. Thanks, @duboc_guillaume for your work on this.

So I love this new Elixir type system. It lets me continue to view the world mostly through a static lens, and gradually embrace the concepts. In the mean time, as the type system rolls out, it catches more and more mistakes in my reasoning.

All these years, something has been nagging me. We have achieved much in Elixir, even in terms of reliability. It's shocking, and against conventional wisdom. Still, we all make mistakes that true static typing would catch.

Elixir gave me Ruby-like syntax. I got dynamic binding. I got Erlang's concurrency and reliability. At the same time, @FrancescoC invited me into his Erlang world, and I had a whole new set of friends and mentors to explore this world.

I just wasn't ready for static. Too, my dyslexic brain couldn't grasp all of the parens in Clojure, a language I otherwise love. It was no surprise that when @josevalim created Elixir, it clicked.

I think full static typing plus concurrency plus a whole new programming paradigm was just too much to fit into my head. I found that Haskell was beautiful, but too much to absorb at once. But an idea instantly resonated with me: OOP systems love dynamic; FP love static.

Seven Languages was successful partially because it chronicled my breakthrough, and invited others to come along with me. I found many ideas that I grew to love. Ironically, I didn't find a language I loved in the whole mix. Why?.

I have always worked on small teams, and always had a tremendous amount of control over my codebases, and always worked on startup software projects. Mostly, these systems worked for getting solutions to market quickly. Success and time have an odd way of changing that.

My favorite OOP languages were all dynamically typed, mutable, and simple to understand. Mostly, I traded away compile time guarantees and application performance for simplicity of a dynamically typed simple language for building the same app over and over: a web UI on a.

In 2010, I wrote Seven Languages in Seven Weeks. It was a book written in fear, and the idea that concurrency was going to drive the development of programming languages. In particular, the popular OOP language families were mostly moving toward mutability and statefulness.

I just saw @josevalim's post about the math behind the Elixir programming language's new gradual type system checking out. This post was tremendously exciting for me. Allow me to explain with this too-long post.

RT @josevalim: The math checks out!!1! #MyElixirStatus.

See you in Berlin! .#MyElixirStatus.

RT @adolfont: Bruce Tate @redrapids and @paulovalim will be speakers at Code BEAM Europe 2024.#MyElixirStatus

RT @TheErlef: 📢 Check out these must-see @CodeBEAMio talks!. 💬 Parenting by @sasajuric.👉 💬 Growing New Chemists an….

I was just hanging out and minding my own business, when Elixir's new type system saved me from making a pretty dark mistake. changeset.valid versus changeset.valid?. That would have been a tricky one that might have only been caught in production. Thanks, @josevalim.