4 ms·

“In fact, I might go as far as saying that Elixir gives you a fun language (like Ruby) while leaving out the stateful footguns OOP languages give you. There are

“In fact, I might go as far as saying that Elixir gives you a fun language (like Ruby) while leaving out the stateful footguns OOP languages give you. There are no classes, no instances, no inheritance…it's immutable and functional and you're not bogged down by a static type system.” I want this but with types. I’m convinced strongly typed is the way to go for larger code bases as it hides the magic of a lot of things and is easier to reason about.

creakingstairs 3y ago
Types are coming! Hopefully not too far away. https://elixir-lang.org/blog/2023/06/22/type-system-updates-research-dev/ https://elixir-lang.org/blog/2023/06/22/type-system-updates-...
weatherlight 3y ago
It's less of an issue with elixir than it is with ruby or python or any other dynamic lang (or static lang) with mutability. Because of pattern matching/unification in functions, you have a good idea what shape your data is as it's being passed around. if you still don't feel comfortable, there's always Dialyzer. Dialyzer is a static analysis tool for erlang/elixir. It's part of the standard Erlang Release and stands for DIscrepancy AnaLYZer for ERlang programs. It identifies software discrepancies such as type errors, dead code, unnecessary tests, etc., in single Erlang modules or entire (sets of) applications. Dialyzer starts from a base of correct programs and infers types; it doesn't require type annotations but uses them if they are available to provide better warnings. https://fly.io/phoenix-files/adding-dialyzer-without-the-pain/ https://fly.io/phoenix-files/adding-dialyzer-without-the-pai...
- japhib 3y ago
  Big time this ^, I really need static typing in hobby projects (I like C#/Typescript) but at work we use Elixir and it doesn't end up being a problem because of pattern matching. It's partially because it ends up being run-time type checking, and partially because it makes the code _read_ like a statically typed language.
GavinMcG 3y ago
You might like Gleam, then. Seems to have a similar feel.
kimi 3y ago
I'm a contrarian here. I really wished we had inheritance in Elixir for GenServers - because those are objects, interacting out of messages and not just glorified structs with associated functions. So I wish I could have a generic template for a project's GenServer (for basic common registration, memory configuration, logging), that is specialized for a specific task, of which there are three flavours. Speaking of footguns, Elixir patches this problem with macro code generation, but it is not so good. Any my GenServers are full of trivial repetitions.
- POiNTx 3y ago
  Behaviours might be what you're looking for, they're the closest thing to inheritance in Elixir. And you're absolutely right about genservers being objects :)
  - kimi 3y ago
    They are, but it's not as natural as A specializes B that specializes C.
    - toast0 3y ago
      It's maybe not quite as formalized inheritance, but (at least in Erlang) you can make behavior B that is a behavior A, and in module C (which implements behavior B), do B:start(C, ...) B;start/? Most likely does A:start(B, ...) and when the callbacks come in, B may call functions from C or not depending on things (such as if there is an optional callback defined). If your boilerplate turns out to not really be that samey though, it's easier IMHO to have a template and customize it where applied.

creakingstairs 3y ago

Types are coming! Hopefully not too far away. https://elixir-lang.org/blog/2023/06/22/type-system-updates-research-dev/ https://elixir-lang.org/blog/2023/06/22/type-system-updates-...

weatherlight 3y ago

It's less of an issue with elixir than it is with ruby or python or any other dynamic lang (or static lang) with mutability. Because of pattern matching/unification in functions, you have a good idea what shape your data is as it's being passed around. if you still don't feel comfortable, there's always Dialyzer. Dialyzer is a static analysis tool for erlang/elixir. It's part of the standard Erlang Release and stands for DIscrepancy AnaLYZer for ERlang programs. It identifies software discrepancies such as type errors, dead code, unnecessary tests, etc., in single Erlang modules or entire (sets of) applications. Dialyzer starts from a base of correct programs and infers types; it doesn't require type annotations but uses them if they are available to provide better warnings. https://fly.io/phoenix-files/adding-dialyzer-without-the-pain/ https://fly.io/phoenix-files/adding-dialyzer-without-the-pai...

japhib 3y ago
Big time this ^, I really need static typing in hobby projects (I like C#/Typescript) but at work we use Elixir and it doesn't end up being a problem because of pattern matching. It's partially because it ends up being run-time type checking, and partially because it makes the code _read_ like a statically typed language.

GavinMcG 3y ago

You might like Gleam, then. Seems to have a similar feel.

kimi 3y ago

I'm a contrarian here. I really wished we had inheritance in Elixir for GenServers - because those are objects, interacting out of messages and not just glorified structs with associated functions. So I wish I could have a generic template for a project's GenServer (for basic common registration, memory configuration, logging), that is specialized for a specific task, of which there are three flavours. Speaking of footguns, Elixir patches this problem with macro code generation, but it is not so good. Any my GenServers are full of trivial repetitions.

POiNTx 3y ago
Behaviours might be what you're looking for, they're the closest thing to inheritance in Elixir. And you're absolutely right about genservers being objects :)
- kimi 3y ago
  They are, but it's not as natural as A specializes B that specializes C.
  - toast0 3y ago
    It's maybe not quite as formalized inheritance, but (at least in Erlang) you can make behavior B that is a behavior A, and in module C (which implements behavior B), do B:start(C, ...) B;start/? Most likely does A:start(B, ...) and when the callbacks come in, B may call functions from C or not depending on things (such as if there is an optional callback defined). If your boilerplate turns out to not really be that samey though, it's easier IMHO to have a template and customize it where applied.