Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

blog.tymscar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#181

Post by lpil »

gr4vityWall wrote: post #171
lpil wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that’s good feedback. I agree, that documentation is misleading. I’ll fix them ASAP. > Elixir also provides for much OTP functionality via direct access to the Erlang libraries. This is the norm in Gleam too! Gleam’s primary design constraint is interop with Erlang code, so using these libraries is straightforward and commonplace.

Thanks for the clarification. I've read about Gleam here and there, and played with it a bit, and thought there was no way to directly access OTP through the Erlang libraries. This can be just my lack of familiarity with the ecosystem though. Gleam looks lovely and IMO is the most readable language that runs on the BEAM VM. Good job!

Thank you!

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#182

Post by Capricorn2481 »

brabel wrote: post #165
Verdex wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This last week: * One developer tried to refactor a bunch of graph ql with an LLM and ended up checking in a bunch of completely broken code. Thankfully there were api tests. * One developer has an LLM making his PRs. He slurped up my unfinished branch, PRed it, and merged (!) it. One can only guess that the approved was also using an LLM. When I asked him why he did it, he was completely baffled and assured me he wo…

> One developer tried to refactor a bunch of graph ql with an LLM and ended up checking in a bunch of completely broken code. Thankfully there were api tests. So the LLM was not told how to run the tests? Without that they cannot know if what they did works, and they are a bit like humans, they try something and then they need to check if that does the right thing. Without a test cycle you definitely don’t get a lot…

You guys always find a way to say "you can be an LLM maximalist too, you just skipped a step."

The bigger story here is not that they forgot to tell the LLM to run tests, it's that agentic use has been so normalized and overhyped that an entire PR was attempted without any QA. Even if you're personally against this, this is how most people talk about agents online.

You don't always have the privilege of working on a project with tests, and rarely are they so thorough that they catch everything. Blindly trusting LLM output without QA or Review shouldn't be normalized.

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#183

Post by Capricorn2481 »

constructive wrote: post #179
lpil wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gleam uses regular OTP, it doesn’t have a distinct OTP inspired framework. Source: I’m the author of Gleam.

who cares, just dont shove political opinions into a software project that developers. we are devs not jobless sjw's running around the road with some useless sign board

> who cares, just dont shove political opinions into a software project that developers. we are devs not jobless sjw's running around the road with some useless sign board

Here we are, having a technical discussion and here you are, shoving politics into it.

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#184

Post by blitz_skull »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #117
miki123211 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a flywheel where programmers choose languages that LLMs already understand, but LLMs can only learn languages that programmers write a sufficient amount of code in. Because LLMs make it that much faster to develop software, any potential advantage you may get from adopting a very niche language is overshadowed by the fact that you can't use it with an LLM. This makes it that much harder for your new language…

> Because LLMs make it that much faster to develop software I feel as though "facts" such as this are presented to me all the time on HN, but in my every day job I encounter devs creating piles of slop that even the most die-hard AI enthusiasts in my office can't stand and have started to push against. I know, I know "they just don't know how to use LLMs the right way!!!", but all of the better engineers I know, the…

I wish I could just ship 99% AI generated code and never have to check anything.

Where is everyone working where they can just ship broken code all the time?

I use LLMs for hours, every single day, yes sometimes they output trash. That’s why the bottleneck is checking the solutions and iterating on them.

All the best engineers I know, the ones managing 3-4 client projects at once, are using LLMs nonstop and outputting 3-4x their normal output. That doesn’t mean LLMs are one-shotting their problems.

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#185

Post by blitz_skull »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #182
brabel wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One developer tried to refactor a bunch of graph ql with an LLM and ended up checking in a bunch of completely broken code. Thankfully there were api tests. So the LLM was not told how to run the tests? Without that they cannot know if what they did works, and they are a bit like humans, they try something and then they need to check if that does the right thing. Without a test cycle you definitely don’t get a lot…

You guys always find a way to say "you can be an LLM maximalist too, you just skipped a step." The bigger story here is not that they forgot to tell the LLM to run tests, it's that agentic use has been so normalized and overhyped that an entire PR was attempted without any QA. Even if you're personally against this, this is how most people talk about agents online. You don't always have the privilege of working on a…

Who is normalizing merging ANYTHING, LLM-generated or human-generated, without QA or review?

You should be reviewing everything that touches your codebase regardless of source.

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#186

Post by nodra »

constructive wrote: post #178
bnchrch wrote: post #8

Gleam is a beautiful language, and what I wish Elixir would become (re:typing). For those that don't know its also built upon OTP, the erlang vm that makes concurrency and queues a trivial problem in my opinion. Absolutely wonderful ecosystem. I've been wanting to make Gleam my primary language, but I fear LLMs have frozen programming language advancement and adoption for anything past 2021. But I am hopeful that Gle…

[flagged]

I don’t know anything about gleam. I couldn’t find anything as “shoving political ideologies” on their code of conduct https://github.com/gleam-lang/gleam/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUC...

Examples?

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#187

Post by shirogane86x »

lpil wrote: post #161
stuartaxelowen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean pass every needed function as a parameter? Or just don’t write generic functionality?

Yes, one would use higher order functions, as is common in Erlang, Elixir, OCaml, Elm, etc.

At least half of those languages (Elixir and OCaml) have some sort of mechanism for ad hoc polymorphism (elixir has behaviors and protocols, OCaml has higher order modules) so I feel like the comparison doesn't work that well personally

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#188

Post by lpil »

shirogane86x wrote: post #187
lpil wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, one would use higher order functions, as is common in Erlang, Elixir, OCaml, Elm, etc.

At least half of those languages (Elixir and OCaml) have some sort of mechanism for ad hoc polymorphism (elixir has behaviors and protocols, OCaml has higher order modules) so I feel like the comparison doesn't work that well personally

OCaml's modules are not implicitly instantiated, so they provide the same DX and APIs as you would get in Gleam.

Elixir does have protocols, but they are extremely limited compared to type classes, traits, etc, and they're uncommonly used compared to writing concrete code.

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#189

Post by premek »

lpil wrote: post #163
premek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can generate those conversions, most people do. Hi, what do people use to generate them, I found gserde (edit: and glerd-json)

There’s several options, depending on what you want. The most commonly used option is the language server.

Oh nice, didn't know about it. (I have migrated from vim to neovim and half of it doesn't work for me yet)

I wonder why this is preferred over codegen (during build), possibly using some kind of annotations?

Re: I tried Gleam for Advent of Code

#190

Post by nick4 »

Something I really hope Gleam figures out is a way to streamline the Elm architecture. We see the Elm architecture mostly in web apps, but I think that model is a really good idea for a lot of applications!

But I think two things really hold it back:

* it's verbose.

* they compose awkwardly.

Neither of these are showstoppers, but I think fixing these problems--maybe with something like syntax-level support--could really lead to a beautiful programming language.

Post reply on HN