Pros of Gleam

• Modern, type-safe language with a focus on developer ergonomics
• Seamless interoperability with Erlang and Elixir ecosystems
• Compiles to Erlang bytecode, leveraging BEAM's concurrency and fault tolerance

Cons of Gleam

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Erlang/OTP
• Less mature, with potential for breaking changes as the language evolves
• Limited documentation and learning resources compared to Erlang

Code Comparison

Gleam:

pub fn factorial(n: Int) -> Int {
  case n {
    0 | 1 -> 1
    _ -> n * factorial(n - 1)
  }
}

Erlang:

-spec factorial(non_neg_integer()) -> pos_integer().
factorial(0) -> 1;
factorial(N) when N > 0 -> N * factorial(N - 1).

Summary

Gleam is a newer language built on top of the BEAM, offering modern features like static typing and a more approachable syntax. It aims to provide better developer experience while maintaining compatibility with the Erlang ecosystem. However, OTP is a mature, battle-tested framework with a vast ecosystem and extensive documentation. The choice between Gleam and Erlang/OTP depends on project requirements, team expertise, and the balance between modern language features and ecosystem maturity.

Pros of LFE

• Lisp-like syntax, which can be more expressive and concise for some developers
• Seamless interoperability with Erlang, allowing use of all OTP libraries and features
• Macros and metaprogramming capabilities, enhancing code reuse and abstraction

Cons of LFE

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Erlang
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Lisp-style languages
• Less documentation and learning resources available

Code Comparison

Erlang (OTP):

-module(hello).
-export([hello_world/0]).

hello_world() ->
    io:format("Hello, World!~n").

LFE:

(defmodule hello
  (export (hello-world 0)))

(defun hello-world ()
  (io:format "Hello, World!~n"))

Summary

LFE (Lisp Flavoured Erlang) is a Lisp syntax frontend to the Erlang compiler, while OTP (Open Telecom Platform) is the standard library and runtime system for Erlang. LFE offers a Lisp-like syntax on top of Erlang's powerful concurrency and fault-tolerance features. It provides full interoperability with Erlang and OTP, allowing developers to leverage existing Erlang libraries and tools while writing in a Lisp-style language. However, LFE has a smaller community and fewer resources compared to Erlang/OTP, which may impact its adoption and support.

Pros of Alpaca

• Simpler syntax and more approachable for developers coming from other languages
• Focuses on functional programming concepts with a modern type system
• Designed to be more lightweight and easier to deploy than OTP

Cons of Alpaca

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to OTP
• Less mature and battle-tested in production environments
• Lacks some of the advanced features and tools available in OTP

Code Comparison

Alpaca:

let add x y = x + y
let result = add 5 3

OTP (Erlang):

-module(math).
-export([add/2]).

add(X, Y) -> X + Y.

Key Differences

• Alpaca aims for a more concise syntax, while OTP (Erlang) has a more verbose, traditional functional style
• Alpaca uses type inference, whereas OTP (Erlang) relies on dynamic typing
• OTP provides a comprehensive framework for building distributed systems, while Alpaca focuses on being a lightweight functional language

Use Cases

• OTP: Large-scale, distributed systems with high concurrency and fault tolerance requirements
• Alpaca: Smaller projects or microservices where a simpler, functional approach is preferred

Community and Support

• OTP has a larger, more established community with extensive documentation and resources
• Alpaca is still in early stages of development, with a growing but smaller community

Pros of Aeternity

• Focused on blockchain and smart contract functionality
• Implements state channels for scalability
• More recent project with modern blockchain features

Cons of Aeternity

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to OTP
• Less mature and battle-tested in production environments
• Narrower scope, primarily for blockchain applications

Code Comparison

OTP (Erlang):

-module(hello).
-export([hello_world/0]).

hello_world() ->
    io:format("Hello, World!~n").

Aeternity (Sophia):

contract HelloWorld =
  entrypoint hello() : string =
    "Hello, World!"

Key Differences

• OTP is a general-purpose framework for building distributed systems, while Aeternity is specifically designed for blockchain applications.
• OTP uses Erlang as its primary language, whereas Aeternity introduces Sophia, a custom language for smart contracts.
• Aeternity incorporates blockchain-specific features like consensus mechanisms and token economics, which are not present in OTP.

Use Cases

• OTP: Telecommunications, large-scale distributed systems, fault-tolerant applications
• Aeternity: Decentralized applications (dApps), smart contracts, blockchain-based solutions

Community and Support

OTP has a larger, more established community with extensive documentation and long-term support from Ericsson. Aeternity, being newer, has a smaller but growing community focused on blockchain innovation.