2 ms·

The answer to "why not methods" would be because it doesn't have methods.

• mixmastamyk 2y ago
  And why not?
  • Jtsummers 2y ago
    Because they selected to make a functional, not OO, language based largely on BEAM which was designed for Erlang, a functional, not OO, language. Why would you make an OO language if your goal is to make a functional language?
    • mixmastamyk 2y ago
      Dogma not appreciated. Personally don't care if a lang is functional or OO, they aren't exclusive categories. For example, several OO langs have added functional features. Don't see why this one couldn't use static methods for its immutable types. Wouldn't hurt anything, would it? As mentioned in this thread, having to import libraries to operate on basic types is suboptimal to say the least.
      • lpil 2y ago
        > Wouldn't hurt anything, would it? One of Gleam's design goals is to not have multiple ways to do the same thing, so having to pick between using method chains or pipelines would work against that. > having to import libraries to operate on basic types is suboptimal to say the least. The language server will do this for you in a Gleam project.
        • mixmastamyk 2y ago
          I could imagine a method call done in a pipeline, but would have to work out the details. Maybe self/this or omit the variable name? Not sure how doable. Folks recommended tools to alleviate Java verbosity back in the day as well. But you still have to read it—which unfortunately happens 100x more than writing.
          • lpil 2y ago
            Gleam dodges the problem by not having methods at all. Totally. Gleam priorities reading over all else, and generally it is praised for being unusually easy to understand code written in it