Similarly, Elixir from a Rubyists perspective was a paradigm shift, with Elixir being a functional language, introducing concepts like pattern matching, processes, message passing, etc. But it solved a particular problem - as it could be argued other languages did - but people still opted for Elixir despite it being so different.
If you’re saying Gleam and Cure are so different that they wouldn’t be in that position to begin with (where someone is having to decide between them to do something that Elixir might not be suited to) then it eliminates Gleam or Cure from the equation entirely depending on what they can or can’t do or what they are or are not suited to.
Ultimately, it would probably boil down to:
- What can Gleam do that Elixir can’t
- What can Cure do that Elixir can’t
- Out of the above, what can Gleam AND Cure do, and out of these which is the more compelling option depending on complexity/syntax/other things that are important to that particular user
From what you’re saying it seems that Cure and Gleam aren’t really designed to solve the same kind of problem or in the same kind of way, in which case it would make the decision easier.
