Comment by innocentoldguy

Comment by innocentoldguy 3 days ago

Gleam lacks lisp-style macros, and its implementations of BEAM and OTP are not exhaustive. For example, Gleam does not support:

- Hot updates.

- Full distributed system support.

– Low-level process manipulation.

- Named processes.

- Advanced supervision strategies.

- Behaviours other than GenServer.

- Type-safe distributed messaging.

- And several other things that I value in BEAM and OTP.

I can't justify trading the full power of BEAM and OTP for static typing. To be fair, though, I've written a lot of code in both statically and dynamically typed languages, and static typing isn't something I value much (to the point that you might say I don't care about it at all :D).

raphinou 3 days ago

I knew otp was still suboptimal in gleam, but thanks for mentioning all these additional points!

Funny how preferences and priorities vary among devs, I need my static type system! :-) But note even in static type systems there are variations. I'm talking about an hindley milner type system with its type inference like the one in fsharp

Reply View 0 replies

felixyz 2 days ago

My current preference is to use Elixir and its great ecosystem as the shell for my project, and implement the core business logic in Gleam.

Reply View 1 reply

innocentoldguy 2 days ago

Why? The business logic part is where Elixir outshines Gleam the most, isn’t it? What do you gain by doing this?
(I am genuinely curious and not trying to be snarky.)

Reply View | 0 replies