Is Gleam your next programming language? (with Louis Pilfold) 

It was an absolute pleasure. 🙂

Great work Louis

Yeah, it’s a great way to work, if you have time on your side. A real antidote to the sprint-treadmill.

Thanks! I'm really glad you liked it. I'm looking forward to releasing many more. :-)

Yes, I definitely want to get Louis back soon. And with a bit of luck & planning, I'll also have someone else from the lovely Gleam community on soon. 🥳

@@DeveloperVoices Awesome!

@@DeveloperVoices cant wait! i wonder who it is...hayleigh? giacomo? idk anybody else lol

Awesome! Yeah, I've been having some fun with Gleam too - Louis' done a great job. :-)

Thank you!

Do you mean like something Racket-esque? I don't think Gleam intends to be a language where users can dynamically extend the language itself. It's a very interesting point in the design space though. Maybe we should do an episode on Racket... 🤔

@@DeveloperVoices I never used racket, it's just an extended Scheme, I think. But it's a Lisp, too. I don't like Scheme because of the macro system. I still prefer the Common Lisp Macro System, not the Scheme one, which also inspired Rust. >Maybe we should do an episode on Racket... 🤔 I'd prefer an episode on Scopes, which is still in development. It has many important language features buiiltin (low level by default), and it's easy to create new ones.

​@@porky1118wow forgot about scopes. I gotta check that out again

I'd try the recently-released Exercism track: exercism.org/tracks/gleam IIRC, it was written by Louis, so you'll be in good hands. :-)

That's a really tough question. I don't think Louis' in any hurry to put the 1.0 badge on it, but I also know it's already in use in production. I guess it also raises the question, what does 1.0 mean? Production ready? Supported? Guaranteed not to make any major changes? Stack overflow already has answers to most of your questions? My impression is that what's already there is high quality enough to start relying on, but there's a lot of design work and fleshing out still to do. For anything more definite, I think you should probably head to the Gleam Discord and strike up the conversation. :-) discord.gg/Fm8Pwmy

@@DeveloperVoices regarding this version 1.0. I think this is such a "magic version". In the companies I've worked for, when a team of some programmer/developer wanted to use a new technology in a project, the CTO always stipulated that there was no permission for commercial use (and potential wasted budget) on technologies that were not (and here I quote) "minimally stable, i.e. at least version 1.0, provided versioning is carried out reliably". So while for me as a programmer, from a technical point of view, there is not much difference between 0.33v and 1.02v if I know that the technology is mature enough. In commercial projects, managers calculate the financial risk. Therefore, the rule there is usually 'the better is the enemy of the good' meaning that it is better to choose something potentially inferior but battle-tested because it is less financial risk. In conclusion, I think that this magical version "1.0" is simply needed to make it easier to convince business to use a technology commercially. ;)

@@DeveloperVoices the other point I'd like to make is one flaw I see in what's going on around Gleam. I am fascinated by Gleam. It looks like a great technology. Personally, I am a TypeScript developer. However, I've never had any commercial exposure to heavily functional programming, nor to languages created to be written primarily functionally. Therefore, what I write below is purely my opinion. I do not want it to be taken as some kind of dogmatic truth or, worse still, to provoke some kind of programming wars. New technologies need to catch some kind of publicity in the developer community in order to exist. According to my observation, one of the best ways to achieve this is when the community invests in teaching their technology. Unfortunately, I have to admit that in this field the functional programming world is doing very mediocrely (to put it mildly). If we compare the content related to tutorials for technologies related to object-oriented programming, we can see a huge variety, but above all topicality. On the other hand, one only has to search youtube for tutorials for functional languages. Most are noticeably outdated, often recorded in poor quality. This is very bad for the development of the community, especially when you consider that learning via youtube, udemy, etc. is now probably the most popular form of learning. I'm sad to see that Gleam suffers from the same problem - there is virtually no quality content online teaching Gleam in a structured way (the only material I've found is a Gleam track on exercism(dot)com, but that's categorically not enough!). I think Louis could definitely serve his community and his programming language better if, instead of another recording being a loose chat about Gleam, he created something more along the lines of educational content, in order to facilitate the influx of newcomers to the language and community, which should more than pay off in time. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this project with the pleasure of completing further tasks on the Gleam track on exercism(dot)com

I predict March, 2024.

😂

Oops, sorry. Hopefully that's better in recent episodes - I was still finding my feet for this one. 😊

@@DeveloperVoices Thanks, I really enjoyed the interview! I subscribed, and am excited to see more!

Oh that's very interesting - I didn't realise you could run Rust code inside the BEAM. 💡🙂

Super dumb comment. We want a statically typed language for the BEAM. Not C subroutines written in Rust that Elixir or Erlang calls.

I can neither confirm nor deny. I’m Switzerland. 😅

Can we agree on...unusual? 😁

​@@DeveloperVoices Sure, but I don't know if it's the multiple function clauses or arity specification or for comprehensions that does it.. I think that the biggest thing that makes Erlang look different is that pattern-matching makes information hiding less common. So you end up parsing directly into bound values instead of just returning a single value that's bound to a single value. {this, That, _, Huh} = i_suspect:its_this_stuff().

😅

I’m pretty sure all modern programming languages are just three assembly language instructions in a trench coat. 😁

Dang, I’ll have to get my rhetorical devices to pay off more quickly next time. 😅

Stopped at 3200 seconds.