Erlang took the right approach by making something that has some real advantages in the real world. Don't just tell us it's a "better language" - show us by building something real that's not easily replicated.

I'm not trying to tell anyone it's a "better language". I have neither time, nor desire to do that. As I said, I'm busy getting things done. :)

As for building something, how about a non-trivial application with no analogues out there, 6 months, 3 people, 15KLOC of nice tight code, and public beta planned for spring? http://hypernumbers.com

I was actually saying that Erlang has 'shown' - if nothing else, at Ericsson. It's the other guys - Haskell and company - that need to do more building and less talking about monads and things of that ilk.

The thought that I might've misunderstood what you were trying to say did cross my mind while I was writing that second comment. :)

I agree with what you are saying. Erlang has some ugly corners, but all-in-all it's awesome, and it turned out awesome because its designers had practicality as the major design goal, and have used the language themselves extensively to solve real problems. Erlang's not even functional merely because Joe Armstrong liked FP; he made it functional because it made the language better suited to solve the problems it was meant to solve.