Hacker News Reader

How does it contradict it? Without any modification/installation you can interop with Erlang/Javascript. How is that not out of the box usability of the Erlang/JS ecosystem? Syntax isn't as seamless as Elixir, but we need a way to tell Gleam what types are being passed around.

Why do you feel like a gatekeeper? Your opinion is valid, it's just that the interop statement was wrong.

View on HN

That's FFI bindings. I need to provide the function signature of every API, because Erlang isn't statically typed. It's okay if some library provides it (like the linked , but I don't want to write this by hand if I can avoid it. And it's definitely not out of box, someone has to write the bindings for it to work

It would be different if I didn't have to write bindings and Gleam integrated automatically with foreign APIs. For Erlang that's probably not possible, but for the Javascript ecosystem it could make use of Typescript signatures maybe. (it would be very hard though)

Yeah, it's there out of the box but it's certainly not seamless. For an Elixir dev, it is more friction than you're used to. It is the cost of static types.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com