Gleam v1 HAS BEEN RELEASED 

With 7 years total industry experience :D

@@user-ez8ty5ii5r for junior salary :D

I’m shocked anyones wanting specific Gleam experience at this point

Beautiful

Nice.

C# gang still here…

i also think todays languages need pkg repos and discovery by default alongside the t hings mentioned in 5:55

What's funny is OOP is *supposed* to be an implementation of actor patter with message passing...

billons must BEAM

Err i dunno - lang

The hard r too

Louis! Let's Prime writing Gleam. PLS!

Congrats :)

big it up!

Loved your chat with Richard Feldman a while back, would *love* seeing you have one with prime too :)

@@costinel57 where is this Richard / Louis chat?!

charm = based

Question. As a new dev, Why do you guys use GO over Rust.

yes!

He based

I just wish he didn't spread misinformation/misconceptions about the rust trademarks in like every single video/stream

​@@mikkelens?

@@ahmedifhaam7266 it seems he's started getting over it, but I've been watching him less so I wouldn't know for sure. The rust trademark thing was only subject to scrutiny because rust is such a darling open source project. The Rust Foundation is not at all some uniquely corporate entity in the programming language ecosystem. The 'scandal' was that an unfinished piece of legal jargon was a little restrictive with the use of a trade mark, not too dissimilar to how all other trademarks already work even in programming languages. People (like Prime) blew a fuss about it because they wanted to have a reason to feel or be justified in feeling skeptical or different in their view of rust in general.

@@mikkelens ?

link to it please

yes, good choice. Building a compiler with the language you're writing is not impossible but sounds like a bad idea.

@@nyahhbinghi it's called bootstrapping

@@Yoshidzo yes you can do it, I understand, but I think it's a good choice not to :)

@@nyahhbinghi why you think so?

Probably they will change in the future or simply let it be; if it works, it works.

Rust has those paradigms, they are not 'rust paradigms'. Not too mention that erlang's pattern matching is more powerful than rust's by a long shot.

It really is everything I want

@@sfulibarriI say "rust" because that is the predominant target audience of this channel, I am aware that other languages have those monads and pattern matching

Why do you like result/option? It is a horrible horrible feature!

@@oleksiistri8429nice ragebait

Maybe he was just confused, but I feel he never learned proper FP, which makes thing confusing whenever he's referring to FP concepts being used in multi-paradigm languages.

It confused me a lot, he was basically just talking about using a higher order function. What is currying actually, to be specific? I feel like I don't even know what it means

@@NostraDavid2 As ignorant as I am, I think the purpose of currying is pretty similar to closures: access values initialised somewhere else. That’s what Prime meant in the example he was making about avoiding to add obscure properties to a function. What he shows actually IS currying.

​@@mikkelens currying, like partials, is a way to pre-feed a value to a function. Can’t link you here the stack overflow answer /a/51253347

currying and closures are related...you are binding data to data, etc

good call! we were at 11:59pm but back at 11:01pm

no, crystal hasn't caught on bc there really isn't that many people wanting to use ruby let alone a language that's very close to ruby syntax wise but that's compiled it's just a niche language for a niche audience

@@FlanPoirot it hasn't caught on amongst people who absolutely do want that, is what I mean. I felt that went without saying, but there is always someone who needs it spelled out.

i was about to say that all the newer languagesa just re-create Express lol.. or Laravel

@@Microphunktv-jb3kj yes but Phoenix compared to Rails is night and day better

I do not envy your life.

@@herrpez I’m sorry you had to leave this reply

@@adnan37h I chose to.

The same thing is available in scala

@@azizsafudin nice! It looks like scalas "use" works like pythons "with" and JavaScripts "using". Where as Gleams "use" works like Kokas "with", enabling many dynamic patterns by letting the user function control when (0-*) to call the rest of the code in the current scope.

Why? Is it fast or something compare to CLR/JVM?

@@quachhengtony7651 great for high-concurrent application, especially for server + high fault torrerent

@@quachhengtony7651 Speed is not really the impressive part of BEAM, and the JIT is actually slightly slower than both CLR and JVM, but where it beats them is introspection capabilities, insane IPC (meaning you can run it on multiple nodes and have them share scheduler) and the scheduler being second to none when it comes to resilience in concurrent systems at scale.

​@@quachhengtony7651 It's got some crazy concurrency features.

@@quachhengtony7651 Heard it's really good with parallelization. Don't know the details though.

yes

await?.and_then() vibes... less declarative, more composable and functional

How come they didn't notice?

@@dan-bz7dz they noticed, there’s been a open GitHub issue for this as of 2015. Fixing it is extremely difficult, I’m not even sure the rust team wants to/can fix this issue

@@dan-bz7dz It's been recognized since 2015. However, it can't be fixed until the new trait solver is implemented (pretty sure)

link to gleam tour

What makes you think noone is using Elixir? As a full-time Elixir dev I'd say it seems to be gaining interest as awareness grows. Also really interested in Gleam, though.

@@pdgiddie well, a couple years ago I saw it mentioned in job ads here and there, articles were floating around etc. But the last years haven't seen anything anymore. Some I know who switched their stuff to Go. The little I played around with it I really liked it though. It was definitely my favorite from the bunch I tried at that time (I wrote some toy things in a handful of languages I didn't know, including Clojure, Julia, Go, F#)

it has been rewritten from erlang to rust, you are right yes

The caveat is that you then have to use the `new` keyword to access the non-static methods. I created a WooCommerce API client that had an interface like this: interface Products extends Methods { (id: number): { Variations: Variations } Attributes: ProductAttributes } interface ProductAttributes extends Methods { (id: number): { Terms: Terms } } /* Terms & Variations look much like the above */ interface Methods { retrieve: (id: I) => Promise /* other methods */ delete: (id: I) => Promise } This would mean that I can make a DELETE request to the `/products/1` endpoint like this: `await Products.delete(1)` make a GET request to `/products/2/variations/3` with `await Products(2).Variations.retrieve(3)` and make another GET request to `/products/attributes/4/terms/5` with `await Products.Attributes(4).Terms.retrieve(5)` To use static methods, that last one would look like `await (new Products.Attributes(4)).Terms.retrieve(5)` which just feels weird. (I suppose one could argue that the pattern I created does too, but 🤷)

yes that's right!

No. I don't think so. For example, Mojo with theirs SIMD stuff. And functional languages with their monads, parenthesis and exotic patterns. And what about JavaScript?)) Yeah, it was kinda simple but it is not straightforward. Same thing I could say about CMake, VimScript

@@personal-stream-studio Yeah, you're right that they don't end up being simple and straightforward. I guess what I meant was, I don't believe anyone sets out making a new language without that being the intention. The only reason I see to make a new language is that someone thinks they can do something more simple or straightforward than one of the other 100 billion languages.

@@TminusDoomLook at go. still at 25 keywords, everything slightly complicated is in the stdlib, and some edge cases are made by the go team but not even in the stdlib (like the text or cases package) writing Go feels like i'm forced to do it the idiomatic way by how constrained it is, and that's good. it's been more than a decade and the language is about as simple as when it came out, with exception of generics maybe. compare that to Rust, which has an insane amount of features every update. I doubt their original idea was to be like Go simplicity wise. stuff like java which has about 10 ways of making an array and 5 ways of concatenating two strings together, if they had the Go philosophy like gleam also has, you wouldn't have those things. there is a method for literally anything you can think about on every type. gleam aims to be like Go, and if they do it like Go did in the last decade, I believe they can achieve their goal. for example, gleam doesn't even have a for loop, looping is strictly done with recursion.

sort of. but Louis is guaranteeing not to make breaking changes or add unncessary "features". no other language creator made that promise.

Syntax-wise, rust is definitely close. But what are the go-like components that exist in gleam? I haven't found any

@@detaaditya6237 in the sintax I don't see any, I see them in the philosophy of the language

it's the targetted runtime (BEAM) not just the language

not a primary focus **at the moment**. they've made it clear that they will only work on those things after the language itself is further along, anyone that has hung around enough on the zig discourse channels knows that zls will eventually die as zig will have it's own autocompletion server in the compiler itself (they won't be using the LSP as their protocol)

Their main Lsp contributor died some time ago. 😢, probably because of that.

No, Zig is shit because no concept of trait/interface

@@egorsozonov7425 that's the dumbest shit I've heard interfaces are nice but they're not a complete requirement, Zig is a C replacement which is a language that doesn't have those either, you just get data do soemthing and maybe return data. it's a different style of programming. if you were to give an argument for why zig sucks I'd think it would be more valid if you spoke about comptime's complexity and how it makes making good tooling harder. also there's a lot of inconsistency in the stdlib and the conventions used in the language rn. also the language is not even 1.0, it could completely change under ur feet, so unless you're very much into it and willing to contribute I'd advise u to keep out for now

"use x " is just pattern matching syntax, nothing related to

@@OnFireByte IOMonad just sounds like the functional version of streaming.

@@TJackson736 it's more like the functional version of async/await

He doesn't.

The example he gave was currying... A function that takes one parameter and then returns another function is exactly what currying is.

It's a very spicy line of code, right?

@@sullivan3503 Not really, technically. Check out Wikipedia.

they fixed it :) it's now a starfish that doesn't look like a butthole haha

New way to do null check next update!

I'd say that Gleam is the simplest functional language out there. You can grasp all concepts in a few hours.

Don’t think it’s going to help in your case. Go is great for building small and efficient binaries for multiple platforms This one is specifically for building apps that run on the BEAM. Very different kettle of fish

true

Installation issues here too. Bummer.

@@ReyLamurinmine just fixed itself, so i don't know maybe they made an update either on their end or on my OS end.

static typing - obvious