And the first question was about Erlang (just saw it now).
The answer explained it, they were &quot;just not into it&quot; and &quot;nobody really knew about it&quot;.<p>Apparently they didn&#x27;t even deeply looked into the language, and as the discussion with one of the first commenters (which could be barely heard unfortunately) shows, that Erlang might have been another good choice, but it seemed to be a greater risk for them than going the go route.<p>It is interesting that a pro point for Go was for him because it was backed by Google. This apparently was one pro to go with the risk of the language, which, regarding Erlang, being backed by Ericsson, was NOT a pro.<p>For this company it worked out good going the Go route, and there is nothing wrong with that, it just seems that going the other risk with Erlang, and actually having put in the work to properly research it, might have been an even better step into the software, and the downsides that are apparent through the presentation and the half sentences you could understand from the discussion with the first commenter.