> This is a taskbar button press for me. I'd hate for anyone to lightly brush off this feature. The fact that you can you can just rsync a binary means you can just spin up a machine, not care about what libraries are installed, and just run the Go binary on it.

I know there are tools like Chef out there, but I can spin up production-ready Go application servers on any Linux box in a minute because of this feature.

> nd for runtime errors Go shows the entire stack

Erlang shows, logs, send via mail and telepathically tells you about what died where with all the details, and then additionally restarts the failed process according to restarting policy and tries again. Or not.

Anyway, I think this thread was about comparison of Erlang and Go - other threads are already full of people writing how wonderful Go is. As a part time Erlang developer, in this thread, I'd like to read what Go has better than than Erlang, not what is good in Go in general, because the latter is just increasing noise-to-ratio.

And it's possible to build single binary and deploy it with Erlang too.

Better string handling.

Static typing with a very convenient expression in the language.

A concurrency model that is easier to adopt if your frame of reference is concurrent C++.

A simpler, friendlier syntax, which is probably not a win if you're a veteran Erlang programmer.

Probably better tooling: native binaries, a lightning fast compiler with great error messages and testing facilities, &c.

Perhaps a more modern standard library, which is made somewhat simpler and more concise by the pragmatic adoption of a very little bit of conventional OO, without going whole hog the way Java does.

There are certainly advantages to Erlang, too!