The similarities are exclusively because of the do..end

Beyond that there's barely any resemblance.

The optional parenthesis syntax is pretty similar and arguably a bit unfortunate, though wider adoption of the code formatter seems to largely correct this. It's nice in the console to type a bit less, but I can't imagine the utility of this in code that any other person is going to read.

Often times when writing a macro or a function that should appear as though it's a part of a DSL, the advantage of turning off parenthesis can shine here. That's why parenthesis are optional with a lot of the Ecto macros.

Optional parentheses are pretty much a requirement considering how much of Elixir is actually 'just' macros. I'm very happy that the formatter adds them for me as much as possible though, because I'm also not a fan of how far Ruby takes it.

Agreed. I used to remove parenthesis as often as possible. Looking back at the code, that may not have been the brightest idea.

I really do like the coding convention though that lack of parenthesis can indicate a function meant to be a part of a DSL.

I agree. As an additional point, when you have auto-formatting on save, this can also enrich your insight about the DSL at hand. It has for me.

As a long-time Emacs user recently I finally bit the bullet and started working with VSCode (with vscode-elixir and ElixirLS installed).

...Gods, what a relief. Especially the automatic formatting on save is just a lifesaver. At certain point I would not mind if there is one formal syntax enforced like Go does.

Ecto is practically the only library I use where I don't pay attention to parentheses. And the formatter has me covered afterwards.

I was amazed to see how VSCode will suggest typespecs all over the place!