Gleam uses regular OTP, it doesn’t have a distinct OTP inspired framework. Source: I’m the author of Gleam.

I wonder why so many have got this wrong across this thread? Was it true once upon a time or something, or have people just misunderstood your docs or similar?

OTP is a very complex subject and quite unusual in its scope, and it’s not even overly clear what it even is. Even in Erlang and Elixir it’s commonly confused, so I think it’s understandable that Gleam has the same problem further still with its more distinct programming style.

"Big Elixir" must be paying people to misunderstand Gleam today eh ;-)

who cares, just dont shove political opinions into a software project that developers. we are devs not jobless sjw's running around the road with some useless sign board

Free software was started as a political movement by Stallman et al. Why would we stop now?

> who cares, just dont shove political opinions into a software project that developers. we are devs not jobless sjw's running around the road with some useless sign board

Here we are, having a technical discussion and here you are, shoving politics into it.

hey, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that Gleam had a few shortcomings re: OTP, like missing APIs or the need to fall back to Erlang. Many people I know who work regularly with Elixir hold similar opinions - do you have any idea what happened there? Is there a lack of publicity for this support? Is it a documentation problem?

I presume they checked out Gleam years ago, or their investigation was more shallow.

That aside, it is normal in Elixir to use Erlang OTP directly. Neither Elixir nor Gleam provides an entirely alternative API for OTP. It is a strength that BEAM languages call each other, not a weakness.