gleam

Pros of Elixir

• Mature ecosystem with extensive libraries and frameworks
• Strong support for concurrent and distributed systems
• Dynamic typing allows for rapid prototyping and flexibility

Cons of Elixir

• Lack of static type checking can lead to runtime errors
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to functional programming
• Performance overhead compared to statically typed languages

Code Comparison

Elixir:

defmodule Greeting do
  def hello(name) do
    "Hello, #{name}!"
  end
end

Gleam:

pub fn hello(name: String) -> String {
  "Hello, " <> name <> "!"
}

Elixir uses dynamic typing and a more Ruby-like syntax, while Gleam employs static typing and a syntax reminiscent of Rust or Swift. Gleam's type system provides additional safety at compile-time, potentially catching errors earlier in the development process. However, Elixir's dynamic nature allows for more flexible metaprogramming and runtime code generation.

Both languages run on the Erlang VM, benefiting from its robust concurrency and distribution capabilities. Gleam aims to provide a more familiar syntax for developers coming from other statically typed languages, potentially easing the transition to the Erlang ecosystem.

Pros of OTP

• Mature and battle-tested ecosystem with decades of development
• Extensive libraries and tools for building distributed, fault-tolerant systems
• Strong support for concurrency and scalability through the actor model

Cons of OTP

• Steep learning curve due to unique syntax and paradigms
• Less familiar to developers coming from mainstream programming languages
• Limited ecosystem outside of telecom and specific industrial applications

Code Comparison

OTP (Erlang):

-module(hello).
-export([hello_world/0]).

hello_world() ->
    io:format("Hello, World!~n").

Gleam:

pub fn main() {
  io.println("Hello, World!")
}

Key Differences

• Gleam offers a more modern and familiar syntax, similar to Rust or Elm
• OTP provides a more comprehensive set of tools for building distributed systems
• Gleam aims to improve type safety and developer experience on the BEAM
• OTP has a larger community and more extensive documentation
• Gleam is designed to interoperate seamlessly with Erlang and Elixir projects

Both Gleam and OTP run on the BEAM virtual machine, allowing for excellent concurrency and fault tolerance. Gleam focuses on bringing a more approachable, statically-typed language to the Erlang ecosystem, while OTP remains the go-to choice for large-scale, distributed systems with its proven track record and extensive tooling.

Pros of Crystal

• Mature ecosystem with a larger community and more libraries
• Syntax familiar to Ruby developers, easing transition
• Compiled language with C-like performance

Cons of Crystal

• Longer compile times compared to Gleam
• Less emphasis on type safety and functional programming paradigms
• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Ruby

Code Comparison

Crystal:

class Person
  property name : String
  property age : Int32

  def initialize(@name, @age)
  end
end

person = Person.new("Alice", 30)
puts "#{person.name} is #{person.age} years old"

Gleam:

pub type Person {
  Person(name: String, age: Int)
}

pub fn main() {
  let person = Person("Alice", 30)
  io.println(person.name <> " is " <> int.to_string(person.age) <> " years old")
}

Crystal offers a more object-oriented approach with class definitions, while Gleam focuses on functional programming with immutable data structures. Crystal's syntax is more Ruby-like, whereas Gleam's syntax is influenced by languages like Elm and Rust. Both languages provide strong typing, but Gleam's type system is generally considered more robust and central to the language design.

Pros of Zig

• Lower-level language with manual memory management, offering more control and potential for better performance
• Comptime feature allows for powerful compile-time code generation and metaprogramming
• Supports cross-compilation out of the box, making it easier to target multiple platforms

Cons of Zig

• Steeper learning curve due to its low-level nature and unique features
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer libraries compared to more established languages
• Still in development, with potential for breaking changes in future releases

Code Comparison

Zig:

const std = @import("std");

pub fn main() !void {
    std.debug.print("Hello, World!\n", .{});
}

Gleam:

import gleam/io

pub fn main() {
  io.println("Hello, World!")
}

Summary

Zig is a low-level systems programming language focusing on performance and control, while Gleam is a functional language targeting the Erlang VM with a focus on type safety and readability. Zig offers more fine-grained control over memory and system resources, making it suitable for systems programming and performance-critical applications. Gleam, on the other hand, provides a more high-level, functional approach with strong type inference, making it well-suited for building concurrent and distributed systems on the BEAM ecosystem.

Pros of PureScript

• More mature ecosystem with a larger community and more libraries
• Advanced type system with features like higher-kinded types and type classes
• Closer to Haskell, making it easier for Haskell developers to transition

Cons of PureScript

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to functional programming
• Slower compilation times compared to Gleam
• More complex syntax and language features, which can be overwhelming for beginners

Code Comparison

PureScript:

module Main where

import Effect.Console (log)

main :: Effect Unit
main = log "Hello, World!"

Gleam:

import gleam/io

pub fn main() {
  io.println("Hello, World!")
}

Summary

PureScript offers a more advanced type system and a mature ecosystem, making it suitable for complex projects and experienced functional programmers. Gleam, on the other hand, provides a simpler syntax and faster compilation, making it more accessible to beginners and better suited for rapid development. The choice between the two depends on the project requirements, team expertise, and development priorities.

Pros of Elm compiler

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and learning resources available
• Strong focus on web development and browser-based applications

Cons of Elm compiler

• Limited interoperability with JavaScript compared to Gleam's Erlang/OTP ecosystem integration
• Slower compilation times for large projects
• Less flexibility in terms of backend and systems programming capabilities

Code comparison

Elm:

module Main exposing (main)

import Browser
import Html exposing (Html, button, div, text)
import Html.Events exposing (onClick)

main =
    Browser.sandbox { init = 0, update = update, view = view }

Gleam:

import gleam/io
import gleam/int

pub fn main() {
  io.println("Hello, World!")
  let x = int.add(5, 3)
  io.debug(x)
}

The Elm code showcases its focus on web development with a simple counter application structure, while the Gleam code demonstrates its general-purpose nature with a basic console output and arithmetic operation.

Elm compiler is better suited for frontend web development, offering a more opinionated and structured approach. Gleam, on the other hand, provides greater flexibility for various types of applications, including backend and systems programming, with its Erlang/OTP integration.