3 ms·
Unlikely I'm afraid. We used to have an ML style syntax but once we switched to a more mainstream syntax we had a big surge in popularity and interest. I am ve
by lpil 5y ago
Unlikely I'm afraid. We used to have an ML style syntax but once we switched to a more mainstream syntax we had a big surge in popularity and interest.
I am very fond of the ML syntax, but I think it is the semantics and type system that really matter, so I am very happy to sacrifice syntax in order to make Gleam more widely accessible.
- G4BB3R 5y agoIs it possible that the popularity increase albeit being correlated to the syntax changes, was not caused by it?
- rkangel 5y agoIt is possible, but would be an interesting co-incidence. More anecdotal evidence, but Elixir has an easier time with adoption that Erlang and a big part of that reason is syntax. It's superficial, you get past it quickly, but it's the first thing you encounter and that can affect whether people give a language a 'proper' go.
- lpil 5y agoThere certainly were other factors, but people have been quite vocal in their enjoyment of the new syntax. I think the ML people like me are kinda used to not getting their favourite syntax. Alas!
- adenozine 5y agoThanks for the response! That's very cool, I wouldn't have thought that the trend would swing that way. I suppose it makes sense in a conventional wisdom kind of way. How long ago was the switch? I'd like to read (code or prose, idc) about your experiences switching the syntaxes out. That's a hard thing to do right, but maybe not so much if it was really early on?
- lpil 5y agoThe big switch was maybe about 3 years ago? v0.5 had a few more changes away from the ML style too https://gleam.run/news/gleam-v0.5-released/ https://gleam.run/news/gleam-v0.5-released/