zlacker

>>tymsca+(OP)
It’s really good. But it needs generics. This is a huge downside. It’s a typed and clean functional programming language but it arbitrarily followed golangs early philosophy of no generics. Ironically golang is one of the most hated languages among many fp advocates.

By the developers own action of adding generics ultimately the golang team admits they were wrong or that generics are better. If gleam gets popular I think much of the same will occur.

There’s simply too much repeated code without generics. I tried writing a parser combinator in gleam and it wasn’t pretty.

>>threet+16
Perhaps this is a silly question but how do you do functional with no generics? Arent they pretty much required for map/reduce/filter?

>>kace91+g6
Most Scheme implementations don't have generics, and you have to deal with a different map function for every data structure.

Gauche has a generic sequence interface which is great, and it's one of the reasons as a Python user I like Gauche as my "daily driver" Scheme.