Hacker News Reader

Comment by dqv | Hacker News Reader

I think what they mean that the Gleam OTP implementation has some caveats - the two that jump out at me is not supporting named processes and not supporting all OTP system messages. Named processes, though, could be implemented like Elixir's Registry, but gleamically. Something that takes a type and returns a PID. Then the process gets named with a via-tuple that calls Gleam's registry.

View on HN

Aye, but this is the same as Elixir; it doesn't have full support for OTP and you are expected to use Erlang modules when you want the rest.

RE named processes, that's coming in the next release, and there's already multiple registry modules implemented in Gleam, including one funded by the Erlang Ecosystem Foundation.

> Aye, but this is the same as Elixir; it doesn't have full support for OTP and you are expected to use Erlang modules when you want the rest.

Ya that's what I was asking about, mostly the interop. But I can just look it up :). Thanks, Louis!

Didn't even think to check for registry modules. The impression I got from the Gleam OTP readme is "can't use this yet", but that was overly pessimistic of me. I really need to give it a try in my next foray out of my comfort zone.

It’s certainly ready for use! The HTTP server made with it is used in production and was the fastest server available on the BEAM for some time, though Elixir’s Bandit has overtaken since then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com