Live data from Hacker News

The Gleam Programming Language

gleam.run

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#91
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All open source projects are political by their very nature.

But not every open source project has a political agenda.

All open source projects have a political agenda. That's the purpose of the licence, to force certain behaviour.

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#93

Gleam is nice. However it is still very lacking in the stdlib. You will need lots of dependencies to build something usable. I kind of wish Gleam could target something like Go, then you would have the option to go native without a "heavy" VM like the BEAM.

[dead]

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#94
post #64

I'm now working on a real world legacy Elixir project in my day job and man oh man do I miss well defined types. Coming from Go, it makes a huge difference to my productivity when I'm able to click through fields and find usages of things, which comes down to the excellence of the Go language server. I know that the Elixir language server can infer some of this, but the language server in my experience is very fickle…

Do the big updates to Elixir's type system help at all? afaik the most recent update added a huge amount of coverage that should extend to older code automatically.

I don't want to go into details of my work project too much, but the fundamental issue is that ElixirLS only supports 1.12+ (at least last time I checked).

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#95
post #66
post #27

Coming from Elixir, I gave Gleam a try for a couple of days over the holidays. Reasons I decided not to pursue: - No ad-hoc polymorphism (apart from function overloading IIRC) means no standard way of defining how things work. There are not many conventions yet in place so you won’t know if your library supports eg JSON deserialization for its types - Coupled with a lack of macros, this means you have to implement ev…

I'm a bit torn on ad-hoc polymorphism. You can definitely do cool things with it. But, as others have pointed out, it does reduce type safety: https://cs-syd.eu/posts/2023-08-25-ad-hoc-polymorphism-erode...

The same point holds of interfaces. And it’s not clear what the alternative is. No type system I’m aware of would force you to change all occurrences of this business logic pattern, with or without ad hoc polymorphism.

But at least ad hoc polymorphism lets you search for all instances of that business logic easily.

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#96
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raku looks sweet, but what is the point of this comparison? :)

I love coding in Raku - and I am sure that Gleam is nice too. But I get the feeling that Raku is underappreciated / dismissed by many due to the perl5 / perl6 history. So my thinking is, when I see a new language showcase an example on their website, presumably a carefully chosen snippet that showcases their language at its best, I like to see how Raku compares to that. You know the take-aways from the comparison are…

The differences you mentioned are advantageous for Gleam depending on what you want. Like, having to namespace symbols instead of implicitly importing symbols makes it explicit where things come from which is good. Needing main, same thing. But the big differences are that Gleam is both functional, so everything is immutable, and fully typed safe. Completely the opposite of Perl/Haku so comparing these languages makes zero sense. If you don’t need types or functional programming you probably would just never use Gleam.

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#97
Well. Coming from TS, Gleam just wasn't/isn't my jam. It's a nice programming language research project, but it just goes against the grain for me a little too much. All the made-up rules early returning always being weird `use` call, the type boilerplate—no inline object types as I remember. Lot of inventions that just makes me go "why?" Like the opposite ideology of Go. And yes I've used Haskell before (didn't like it) and Rust (kinda like it) and others in smaller quantity.

I am more excited about making things rather than fetishizing about some language paradigms so, I acknowledge that Gleam just isn't for me. I did give me the insight that for me, it might be the best to stick with the common denominator languages for the foreseeable future.

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#98
post #31

I am in love with Gleam! As a young computer science student, I found that Gleam brought back the joy of programming just when I felt like I was seriously burning out. I was never a fan of functional programming languages. I had tried other BEAM languages like Elixir and Erlang before, but Gleam is the one I’ve enjoyed the most :)

Have you tried F#? That usually gets a lot of praise in FP discussions.

Re: The Gleam Programming Language

#100
post #54

One of programming languages with political agenda.

The type of people complaining about this are usually the people you don't want in your community to begin with, so I doubt Gleam is missing out here.

Or the contrary, the kind of people finding this cool is usually the people you don't want in your community. Nice to have clarity about who doesn't want to even bother to deal with whom.
Post reply on HN