"I asked why they were not stealing the structure of behind Erlang's behaviours, I didn't suggest anyone should steal Erlang's message bus or anything else."

To some extent I know... but to some extent the answer is these things are all tied together. Erlang is a really tight ball of solutions to its own problems at times. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it all works together. It needs "behaviors" because it didn't have any of the other things I mentioned.

When I went to implement behaviors (https://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2930/ ), I discovered they just weren't worth copying into Go. You ask if any other language uses interfaces to achieve what Erlang does; my perspective is that I've seen people try to port "behaviors" into two or three other languages now, and they're always these foreign things that are very klunky, and solve problems better solved other ways.

"I don't think restarting the process from systemd or kubernetes is comparable with a supervisor tree."

It isn't, but the problem is...

"First of all the tree gives you a way to structure and control the restarts, e.g. frequently failing processes should be further down the tree or they will cause their sister nodes to get restarted etc."

I don't need that. I've been using supervisor trees for over a decade now, and they rarely, if ever, go down more than "application -> services". Maybe somebody out there has "trees" that go down six levels and have super complicated bespoke restart operations on each level and branch, but they must be the exception.

To the extent that I have deep trees, they're for composition, not because I need the complicated behaviors. A thing that used to be a single process service is now three processes, and to hide that, I make that thing a supervisor of its own so that the upper levels still just see an ".Add()" operation, instead of having to know about all the bits and pieces.

"The other obvious difference is speed."

Certainly, but those are only one of the options.

"Yet I don't know of any other language which uses interfaces in a way which they achieve the benefits (listed in the article) that behaviours in Erlang (e.g. gen_server) give you, do you?"

This is a case of what I'm talking about. Don't confuse Erlang's particular solution for being the only possible solution. Erlang's behaviors are basically the Template pattern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_method_pattern ) written into the language rather than implemented through objects. If you look for the exact Erlang behaviors out in the wild, you won't hardly find anything. If you look for things that solve the same problems, there's tons of them. A lambda function in AWS is a solution to that problem. The suture library I wrote is a different one. Java frameworks have their own solutions in all sorts of different ways.

To put it another way, whereas in 1998 people having the problems Erlang solved was rare, today we all have them. We can't be blundering around with no solutions since we are all too blinkered to use Erlang which just solves them all. That makes no sense. There are far more distributed systems concerned with reliability out there now implemented in not-Erlang than in Erlang. We are not all just blundering along in a fog of confusion, unaware of the existence of architecture, modularity, and abstraction. If programmers have a flaw, it's too much architecture rather than too little.

Maybe that's one of the problems with the Erlang writing. It's all implicitly written from a perspective of the 90s, where this is all a surprise to people, and it kind of seeps in if you let it. But that's not where the world is right now. It is not news that we need to be reliable. It is not news that we want to run on multiple systems. I've got non-technical managers asking me about this stuff at work whenever I propose a design. There's been a ton of work on all of these issues. It's not all good, by any means! But there's now too many solutions moreso than not enough.