The project is pre semver 1.0.0, it should not be considering suitable for production.
You'll have to be way more specific about what you mean by "handle errors". Do you mean node to node connection errors? Node to node messaging errors? Errors localized in a custom Hook?
I suggest just reading through the codebase, it's not that big. The entire philosophy is crash only processes which are supervised by Forever. In the current early version of hook.io we usually get let things crash and restart. This isn't idea for guaranteeing delivery of messages, but it's a good start.
Indeed not, but Erlang is Erlang, Hook.io is Hook.io, and Trolls are Trolls. More perspective on opinions would be helpful to evolving away from problems you see, and/or for the use of understanding your comment.
Erlang is a computer language originally built by Ericsson for fault-tolerant telephone switches. Programs are structured as modules that can be replaced (hot swapped) without having to restart the entire program. If a module crashes or needs to be updated it can be restarted or replaced without affecting any other part of the program. Within the Open Telecom Platform, which often is used together with Erlang, there exist frameworks to simplify and automate this task.
Hey all, just wanted to chime in about us using this at Nodejitsu. Hook.io makes it much easier to have a huge mesh network of drones for us and greatly simplified our management code for child processes on our stack. If you are looking for an easy way to have a mesh network or a master/slave network Hook.io will be great.
As for personal use, Hook.io is amazing since it is like a mesh network and IPC event bus put together. I create modules, a way of using deamons supporting features through hooks makes life easier and allows them to be services kept alive out of my process.
Syntax is potentially the most shallow thing to complain about, particularly when it actually makes sense in the structure of the language in question (like Erlang) and doesn't hurt readability for anyone (unlike some perceptions of Lisp).
Shallow? I can't roll my eyes at those whom complain about noisy/unpleasant syntax. It's quite important that it's agreeable to you if you have to stare at it all day long. Sure, there are many other important considerations when evaluating a language, but being concerned with syntax is hardly shallow IMHO.
Yes it depends. There might be legitimate complaints that arise when you "have to stare at it all day long". I'd take syntax complaints from people that have used a language for a long time far more serious than syntax complaints from people that see it for the first time (and still have to train their pattern recognizer :-). Those are shallow.