3 ms·

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! It's quite reassuring to read your post as it sounds like we have had many of the same ideas about types and processes. > One

by lpil 6y ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! It's quite reassuring to read your post as it sounds like we have had many of the same ideas about types and processes. > One thing I did, but this may not work for Gleam, is to replace PIDs with just references to processes, and only allow obtaining such references by spawning a process. This is my current plan, though it does make interop with Erlang/OTP somewhat more tricky. I'm going to have to redesign some of the behaviours there to make passing around references to processes possible.

YorickPeterse 6y ago
> This is my current plan, though it does make interop with Erlang/OTP somewhat more tricky. I have always wondered just how common it is in Erlang/Elixir to just fabricate a PID out of thin air and start sending messages to it. My gut feeling is that this is quite rare, but then again I'm not an Erlang user. If you want to rubberduck about anything related to this, feel free to send me a message/Email/Tweet/etc :)
- lpil 6y ago
  Creating the PID data structure is rare however it's common to give names to processes and then throughout the rest of the program make the assumption that there a process behind the given name that will handle the messages you are sending. I think we'll have to avoid this practice altogether.