I'm not sure if you're implying that Elixir's syntax makes it less good at developing for reliability than Erlang. If so, I'd appreciate if you could explain your thinking further -- if the existence of brainfuck proves that Erlang's syntax is better than Elixir's at developing for reliability, I'm afraid the nature of that proof is eluding me.
> Syntax is crucial when developing for reliability. Brainfuck trivially proves this. Both semantics and syntax need to support reliability.
This is an almost content-free comment. You could have made your comment substantially better by giving some examples of language syntax that makes it easier to write reliable code than unreliable code.
I think that we all agree that Brainfuck and Whitespace are two examples of languages that are very difficult to read. A comment along the lines of "Languages that are difficult to read do not support reliability." is also almost content-free and probably not entirely true. (Some people find C terribly difficult to read -for some reason or other- but very reliable systems have been written in it.[0]) :)
[0] Yes, a quint-squillion unreliable and even dangerous systems have also been written in C. This doesn't invalidate my point.
