Slesa
I read the book “Domain Modelllng Made Functional” several times. And it was absolute clear, that I want to have some types sich as
“Unchecked Order” – read → “Verified Order” – send → “Dispatched Order”
to be sure, that I always deal with the right type of order, for what reason soever. An unread order cannot be send to database for example.
But as Elixir has not really a type system (yet) - is this the right way to go, or how would I deal with this? When I get an order, I need to verify waiter rights. I have to check if I have to ask for length, price, weight, article text, constrainted articles… would I reflect these rules by types? Or would I simply trust on the pipe chain?
Trending in Questions
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
Documentation
While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
Hello,
I’m trying to build a basic Phoenix web-app, and I’d like to use Tailwind.
However, when I launch mix phx.server, I get an error...
New
Hi everyone,
I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding.
I sta...
New
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
I’m working on a small exercise involving update_in/3, and I came up with this solution:
data = %{
name: "Periodic Table",
category:...
New
I’ve got trouble wrapping my head around the order in which functions are called in this snippet (from Phoenix’s authentication):
toke...
New
Other Trending Topics
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived.
Mob is alive!!
Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation
A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM.
Welcome Cure.
It has literally three kille...
New
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language.
Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
Hi everyone!
The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available!
We’ve published a press release detai...
New
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders.
I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ai
- #ecto-query
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #metaprogramming
- #hex










Showing Posts 1 to 7- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
RudManusachi
Perhaps you could use structs?
?
katafrakt
That is a bit of my problem with many resources about functional programming - they cover static typing instead, which makes it not particularly well transferable to Elixir (or Clojure, or some others). In this case use different structs, as @RudManusachi mentioned, but in my experience this will quickly start to feel weird and overengineered (at least that’s my experience, but maybe I did that wrong and someone could share a success story of this approach in Elixir).
IMO Elixir needs to find its own way to do functional modeling, DDD etc, because copying from Scala or F# won’t work. I wrote something about this few years ago, but this is just scratching the surface (and not necessarily the only direction).
DaAnalyst
Maybe like this?
D4no0
What is the problem with using just data with a specific structure and pattern matching? It achieves exactly the same thing and I would say for basic cases it’s easier to read.
The functions can be exactly as @DaAnalyst mentioned, but it doesn’t mean that you necessarily need a struct.
dimitarvp
That’s exactly what many of us do but the sentiment expressed in many such discussions is that sometimes there occurs a “struct bloat” or “too many different types of maps we’re matching on in function heads”-bloat. Which I’ve also seen happening. There are ways around it, of course.
stefanluptak
One problem I find with this approach is refactoring. Something like “find all occurences of this map shape” and rename a key there. Or make sure certain key is only of type integer etc.
dimitarvp
Yeah, that’s why I prefer to just add more structs. It gets annoying but it’s more future-proof.