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
Go touted it's lack of features as simplicity. And it is: on the language writing side. Go is an incomplete language masquerading as a simple one.

>>noneth+uf
That’s the worse is better philosophy which maybe doesn’t matter as much anymore especially with AI

>>ljlole+pg
What do you mean?

>>Nuclea+As
I think he means maybe AI can get around languages lacking features - like how codegen was used for a long time.

Codegen is more and more rare these days, because languages have so many tools to help you write less code - like generics. LLMs could, theoretically, help you crank out similar repetitive implementations of things.