News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Phoenix 1.7 is View-less by sodapopcan on Friday December 30, 2022 @04:28PM (#34190321)
Based on the number of attempts to add static typing to Erlang, I don't see this ever happening.

I know the author of Gleam is going full-time working on it, but I really know much about it or how it gets around the problems with statically typing message-passing. I'm perfectly happy working in dynamic languages and find Elixir's type hinting to be more than adequate.

Re:Phoenix 1.7 is View-less by wa_throwaway on Saturday December 31, 2022 @04:07AM (#34194834)
While it's not as robust as static-typing, compile-time type checking for Erlang has come a long way. Eqwalizer works pretty well, though but I may be biased since my employer sponsors the project.

1. https://github.com/WhatsApp/eqwalizer

Re:Phoenix 1.7 is View-less by 59nadir on Sunday January 01, 2023 @03:34AM (#34204696)
You've been able to write PureScript compiled to Erlang for years. PureScript is a well tested language at this point, and the Erlang compilation works very well. Statically typed message passing is a non-issue in practice and it has been a bad reason for not having it the whole time.

I've been using Elixir since 2015 and can confidently say there is no use case I would choose Elixir for over PureScript for the BEAM. In practice my projects are Elixir + PureScript because we can have them interoperate, but there are zero technical reasons to choose Elixir over PureScript for BEAM work.

Edit:

`dialyzer` and similar tools are unusable for almost all sizes of projects in part because they're badly made, they're too lax and have zero useful abstraction properties. Making a spec generic, for example, is an exercise in futility, whereas an actual type system has no issues with expressing that very basic property.

Re:Phoenix 1.7 is View-less by hinkley on Monday January 02, 2023 @06:57PM (#34225501)
I'd like to see someone tackle a PhD thesis (or ten) on applying formalism to the concept of migrations. I suspect there's a missing aspect of type/group/category theory that's at least as big and important as variance is.

I think it might already mostly exist, it just isn't organized into a discipline.