I am running this code in production, hence it cannot have bugs. QED.

Yours in perpetual bogglement,

Lil' B

That is an interesting strawman you've constructed, as accepting it requires the reader to conflate the idea of bugs in general and "fatal flaws".

Obviously all non-trivial code working in production not only can have bugs, but will have bugs. Just as obviously, no reasonable person would consider those "fatal flaws" for any reasonable definition of the word fatal.

MRI/YARV's Conservative GC opens up some bedevilling classes of bugs for gem writers, obviously. Calling that a "fatal flaw" when millions of lines of production code continue to function despite its presence is nothing but over-the-top hyperbole.

I think the author's definition of "fatally flawed" in this article is more along the lines of "this is an evolutionary dead end and I won't have anything to do with it in the long run" rather than "cannot work under any circumstance."

Erlang is 100% bug free. Use that instead.

You should see Joe's rants on Erlang too. Not as bad as MRI but there are plenty of things to gripe about in beam.

How does this deserve a down vote? Erlangs beam VM is pretty amazing but it's not without some pretty weird artifacts in the source, many of which I've discovered via Joe's twitter ranting.

(EDIT: I guess people don't like unpopular views at all, that's fine, long live jokes, forget the facts.)

I'd rather see a technical analysis of Erlang that didn't read like it was written by Kanye West and sponsored by Axe Body Spray.

This would be funny if it made any sense and if it wasn't a ripoff of an old Merlin Mann tweet about DHH.

A _why tweet? http://favstar.fm/users/_why/status/1640180235

Perhaps you should write that, then.

"Yo Ruby, I'm really happy for you, but Erlang has one of the best VMs of all time."

That's a pretty cool story you got there.

The point was clearly not that it has no bugs, but that if something is working to spec, it's working.