Top
Best
New

Posted by AlexeyBrin 20 hours ago

My first impressions of Gleam(mtlynch.io)
196 points | 69 comments
munchler 19 hours ago|
> I’ve also heard that functional languages lend themselves especially well to parsing tasks, and I’ve never understood why, so it’s a good opportunity to learn.

This is mainly due to a technique called "parser combinators", which can be expressed very cleanly in functional languages. The idea is to start with a standard set of primitive general-purpose parsers and combine them into more complex parsers that are specific to the task at hand. If you have an interest in either functional programming or parsing in general, parser combinators are good to have in your toolkit.

It looks like Gleam has at least two parser combinator packages that you might be able to use:

    • party (https://hexdocs.pm/party/)
    • parser_gleam (https://hexdocs.pm/parser_gleam/)
lpil 1 hour ago||
Parser combinators are very slow in languages without a sufficiently optimising compiler, I wouldn't recommend them here.

In Gleam pattern matching and the "splitter" package is the go-to for text parsing.

IshKebab 17 hours ago|||
I don't think parser combinators are any more difficult in imperative languages like Python than functional ones? I found a few for Python and C++.
andai 34 minutes ago|||
All Turing-complete languages are technically equivalent in capability, but that doesn't mean the same task will cost the same effort in each language.

The closer a task is to the limit of your ability to handle complexity, the more you will benefit from tools that simplify the task.

The choice of programming language unfortunately what tools are possible to implement ergonomically (in terms of both implementation and interface).

sfvisser 17 hours ago||||
Don’t know about difficult, but at least less elegant. Lazy evaluation, type inference, abstractions like Functor/Applicative/Alternative/Monad make them so incredibly natural to work with in a language like Haskell. Sure, they exist in other languages (made a few myself) but it’s not the same.
KPGv2 10 hours ago||
Yes, I'm writing a parser in Unison (in the Haskell family) for ASN.1 at the moment. It's so clean to write parsers with parser combinators.

For example Asn1Type can be of form Builtin, Referenced, or Constrained. So a sum type.

    parseType = Builtin <$> parseBuiltin <|> (Referenced <$> parseReferenced) <|> (Constrained <$> parseConstrained)
Assuming you have the parsers for Builtin, Referenced, and Constrained, you're golden. (Haskell PCs look very similar, possibly even exactly the same minus different parenthesis for operator precedence reasons.

Compare Parsy for Python, particularly the verbosity (this parses SELECT statements in SQL):

    select = seq(
    _select=SELECT + space,
    columns=column_expr.sep_by(padding + string(",") + padding, min=1),
    _from=space + FROM + space,
    table=table,
    where=(space >> WHERE >> space >> comparison).optional(),
    _end=padding + string(";"),
).combine_dict(Select)

The same thing in a FP-style language would be something like

    eq "SELECT" *> 
      Select 
      <*> (sepBy columnExpr (eq ",")) <* (eq "FROM") 
      <*> parseTable 
      <*> optional (eq "WHERE") <* eq ";"
which would feed into something like

    type Select = { cols: [ColumnExpr], table: Table, where: Optional Where}
munchler 17 hours ago||||
The general notion of a “combinator” comes from functional programming, so parser combinators are native to FP. They can definitely be done in imperative languages also, but in my experience (C# specifically) are much more clunky. A dynamically typed language like Python might be suitable, because the interpreter is lenient, but I’m dubious about C++.

One thing you will definitely need in any language to produce a concise parser is the ability to define custom operators, like >>. and .>>. These are the “combinators”.

ModernMech 4 hours ago|||
The way you would implement them in Python or C++ is using their functional facilities. Or you'd write a library that emulated them.

The key feature is first class functions, so you can have combinators like "or()", "and()", "repeat()", "optional()", etc, which take a function pointer as a parameter, as well as the input character stream; and returns the matched characters from the input stream, as well as the rest of the stream. When all combinators have this function signature, you can compose them easily, and writing the parser is becomes a matter of transcribing the ebnf grammar.

asplake 18 hours ago|||
Or thanks to algebraic data types and pattern matching? Even in a modest recursive descent parser, these can be really nice to use.
munchler 17 hours ago||
Sure, although those are great FP features for all kinds of programming, not just parsing.
phplovesong 16 hours ago||
Id say mostly because of recursion is usually better for tree like ds, and builtin tco and exhaustive pattern matching. This is why ocaml is usually the goto for building a new languge prototype.
justusthane 13 hours ago||
As someone who isn’t a programmer, but enjoys dabbling, and has been curious about functional languages, this was a really helpful (and fun!) read!

Tutorials written by beginners are so valuable, because once you’re more experienced with a given subject, it’s hard to remember what it was like to be a beginner. It can feel vulnerable to write them because you have to expose your ignorance, but it’s such a great thing to do.

jszymborski 18 hours ago||
Gleam has long kinda seemed like my idea programming language. My only real hang-up is maybe an irrational one, but I don't love that it needs either a VM (BEAM) to run, or for it to be compiled to an interpreted language (javascript). I really wish it could target LLVM or something so it could be compiled down to native.

Maybe someone can sell me on BEAM though.

EDIT: The comments below are indeed beginning to sell me on BEAM, I'm realizing my reluctance might come from some negative experiences I've had dealing with the JVM.

brightball 18 hours ago||
The BEAM is very lightweight and necessary within Erlang to enforce one of its greatest tradeoffs:

- No universal garbage collector, every process (aka green thread) has its own heap that is reclaimed when it dies.

- No process can takeover the CPU. If you run a hugely intensive task in one process, everything else, millions of other processes potentially, will continue responding normally and consistently. The hugely intensive task will just take longer.

There’s more that applies to some advanced use cases, but these are the 2 core elements that are awesome.

doawoo 13 hours ago|||
Glad you say you're coming around on the BEAM. It really is a fantastic virtual machine. Of course if you look at my comment history you'll see I'm a big fan of it and tend to push it, but that's only because it has actually made my job (and hobby) of engineering easier.

There's something elegant about how everything lives inside a process, and communication between those processes is crazy simple, you just `send(pid, value)` and boom you can not only talk across large codebases, but you can talk across _networked clusters of BEAM VMs_ with little setup.

At my current job, we're using it on embedded Linux for IoT devices, and it's really amazing to section off the code into processes that, if something like an i2c sensor or component glitches out, just let the process crash, and have it be restarted automatically by a Supervisor into a fresh well known state.

Definitely give it a look, it's nothing like the JVM ;)

gmassman 18 hours ago|||
The BEAM is an amazing piece of technology. It’s built to scale massive concurrent systems and has great developer ergonomics. I’ve used it with Elixir and it’s really a breath of fresh air as far as running a webserver goes. Much more flexible and simpler to manage than a python or nodejs runtime, and also capable of scaling up with far fewer resources than you would think. Highly recommend giving it a go!
Cyph0n 18 hours ago|||
I have never seriously used a BEAM language (Elixir/Erlang/Gleam), but for me, it’s the opposite: the most attractive part of Gleam is that it runs on BEAM :)

My reservations at this point are mostly around maturity of the language, the stdlib, and the library ecosystem; although I haven’t been following progress too closely.

h14h 15 hours ago|||
BEAM's concurrency model makes it the ideal runtime for web servers IMO. Similarly, the ubiquity of JS in the browser makes it an excellent runtime to target as well.

I agree though that it would be amazing to compile Gleam code into universal native binaries. Would make it a fatalistic general-purpose language.

AFAIK it's entirely possible -- just more of a resourcing concern given the small team.

giancarlostoro 15 hours ago|||
As others have pointed out. The BEAM is one of the most efficient VMs out there. It isnt FASTER than C or C++ but it is insanely efficient. Stuff like a simple hello world fits in small bytes in memory. The resilience of the BEAM is impeccable. Discord reaps the benefits and uses Rust when it needs to. I love backend systems and my ideal backend always winds up being similar to what BEAM provides OOTB.

My only reason for not using it is nobody pays me to use it, they pay me to write basic CRUD apps in .NET

tcoff91 18 hours ago|||
You need the BEAM because operating systems we have available do not have the properties of the BEAM.

OS processes are far to heavy and slow to start, and the scheduler doesn’t work the way erlang needs it to. The BEAM solves those issues amongst others.

Also you need the BEAM for hot swapping code at runtime without taking the system offline.

dysoco 13 hours ago|||
I thought the whole point of Gleam is having a statically typed lang running in the BEAM VM? If you want something similar outside of it you probably want Scala, Rust, OCaml, etc.
jszymborski 12 hours ago||
I've found the JVM really gets in your way whenever you want to do something interesting with Scala. Rust is fantastic, but a lot of what I want to do can afford the overhead of a GC so that I can avoid lifetimes, borrows, etc...

I've not written any OCaml, but I've heard tell of its reputation of being hard to pick up.

jitl 10 hours ago||
I find Swift to be a nice, less Rust-y Rust. It uses automatic memory management by refcounting (I would call it a GC’d language but people start flame wars about it). Alas ecosystem is small and oddly shaped.

Like with Rust you can write very imperative code full of mutation and thingies with tons of methods, or you can write very functional code passing around immutable struct values types. It also has decent async story, and newly got “actors” and is heading towards optional rust like borrow checking.

Degorath 5 minutes ago||
I really _want_ to like Swift, but the development experience was so abysmal that it turned me off the language entirely.

I have been entertaining the thought of writing an LLVM frontend for Gleam, though. (I don't know what I'm doing, I don't know if this is doable, etc.)

obeavs 16 hours ago|||
You can try Moonbit. It's extraordinarily well designed and compiles to highly optimized JS, WASM or even native
sodapopcan 15 hours ago||
To add to all these other answers, what would you hope to get out of it without BEAM? Just the syntax?
jszymborski 14 hours ago||
I like Python, but it's dynamically typed and slow-ish. I like Scala, but I've bumped into the pointy edges of the JVM (e.g.: type erasure) too many times. Rust is great but for most use-cases I am happy compromising with a GC than having to worry about liftimes and ownership and borrows, etc..

Gleam seems like a happy in-between for me, but not knowing much about BEAM and with my negative experiences with the JVM, I had concerns about the overhead.

sodapopcan 12 hours ago||
I don't really have any experience with the JVM other than playing with Clojure. I don't have much to add to the other answers. Two things of note:

- BEAM trades slow CPU in favour of fast IO, so it's not great for number crunching. - While it can be great for CLI utilities, the VM (although very lightweight) does have a noticeable startup time. It's under a second but it's not a good fit for something you would want to run often, ie, if you were building something like git.

As mentioned in other comments, its super power is its concurrency model. I've essentially forgotten what a mutex or semaphore or whatthaveyou is :)

WJW 16 hours ago||
It really is a neat language. Sort of like the smaller more elegant language that has been waiting to break out of Haskell, but combined with Erlang. Definitely not the "standard" programming language but very very nice.

The core language is pretty small too. Any moderately experienced programmer can probably burn through the language tour and be ready for a few simple AoC problems in an afternoon or so. This is due to the language designer having a very strict dedication to keeping the language as simple as possible. (Much to the chagrin of my muscle memory, as I keep expecting pattern matching on function arguments to work but it doesn't)

asib 20 hours ago||
> [...] It’s an Elixir-like language that supports static typing.

Maybe just me, but when I tried Gleam it really came off much more like Rust. In fact, other than running on the BEAM (and having some OTP libs in the works), it doesn't really _feel_ like Elixir at all to me, but that is definitely an opinion.

sodapopcan 19 hours ago||
They probably just mean "BEAM language that isn't Erlang."

All BEAM languages always bring something new to the table aside from just syntax (for Gleam it's static type, for Elixir it's macros and, well, mix!) but none of them try and abstract away the core tenants of the BEAM being functional working with modules and processes. So ya, in that sense you could say it's like Elixir.

sbrother 17 hours ago|||
How good is the interop story with Elixir/Erlang currently? Can I include a few gleam modules in my Elixir application and let mix take care of compiling and linking everything properly?
sethhochberg 13 hours ago||
I'm currently working on a prototype that does exactly this (in our case, the Gleam is essentially a typed calculation module wrapped in Elixir's great libraries for network and database interactions but its all net-new application instead of an existing Elixir codebase). Its not yet perfect, but I've been eagerly following along with this PR: https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/pull/14262#issuecommen...

Seems like (one of) the next Elixir releases will include the support you're looking for in mix.

tengbretson 19 hours ago||
I've kind of gotten a

Scala : Gleam :: JavaScript : Lua

vibe from it.

jszymborski 19 hours ago||
It also most reminded me of Scala.
thayne 17 hours ago||
My biggest problem with gleam is the lack of any kind of ad-hoc polymorphism (interface, trait, typeclass, protocol, etc.).

It also seems weird to make a language for BEAM that depends on a separate library for actors and concurrency.

Nezteb 17 hours ago||
I thought so too, although treating everything as data and functions is really nice [1].

Regarding the BEAM and why Gleam has a separate library for actors: [2]

> "One notable difference between Elixir and Gleam is that Elixir gets to just re-use the OTP code as-is (with some Elixir wrappers on top for convenience). Gleam concluded that the OTP is built expecting dynamic types, and that for best results in Gleam they'd need to re-implement the key primitives. That's why the example shown is an "Actor" not a GenServer - it serves the same purpose, and might even fit in a Supervision tree, but isn't actually a GenServer."

There's a brief snippet mentioning this in the Gleam OTP readme as well: [3]

> "Actors do not yet support all OTP system messages, so some of the OTP debugging APIs may not be fully functional."

[1] https://mckayla.blog/posts/all-you-need-is-data-and-function...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40645489

[3] https://github.com/gleam-lang/otp#limitations-and-known-issu...

figbert 10 hours ago||
I was tricked into trying Gleam earlier this summer, and really liked it! I anticipate that I will at least use it for all future web projects (one example: https://github.com/FIGBERT/bdab) due to my serious JavaScript allergy.

I will note something that might be of use for the work in this particular article: https://hexdocs.pm/gleam_stdlib/gleam/dynamic/decode.html

Gleam Decoders are something I haven’t fully wrapped my head around, but are supposedly very powerful and do exactly what this article is focused on (parsing input data into Gleam types) in a more(?) idiomatic way.

brightball 18 hours ago||
There was a great talk on Gleam at the Carolina Code Conference in 2024.

https://youtu.be/vyEWc0-kbkw?si=3o-KasK4H2n-0_KD

oDot 16 hours ago||
I moved to Gleam with all of my projects and am not going back. The language is fantastic but really the most impactful are the coding paradigms that it enables, especially the actor model and especially on the front end (The Elm Architecture)
sureglymop 13 hours ago|
So do you build stuff using Wisp and Lustre?

I would love to look at some example applications!

oDot 7 hours ago||
Yes.

https://nestful.app used to be TS + Vue but it's almost entirely Gleam now, with Lustre used for state management and only the views being Vue templates. Those will also be migrated away for a fully Lustre solution.

Blog posts:

https://blog.nestful.app/s/the-tech-behind-nestful

datboi_420 19 hours ago|
This was a great read! One thing that def makes Gleams error handling _look_ nicer, is utilizing `result.try` with the `use` keyword.
More comments...