Your complaint doesn't make sense to me because `use` is essentially the same thing as `await` in JS. It hoists the rest of the function body into a callback so that the logic can be flat. In fact, `use` is an improvement on `await` because it is more generic and avoids the issue of function coloring. Promises also don't make as much sense in BEAM languages where callback based asynchronous code is not all that common or encouraged.
I'm still learning Gleam, but I do not believe that "use" has anything to do with async. It seems to be a direct riff on Haskell's "do notation" syntax sugar (<-), which is used for unwrapping monads, but Gleam seems keen on insulating users from these details at the surface level.
The author of the article has an intuition that "use" is helpful for error handling, and it definitely is because one of the core benefits of monads is chaining certain categories with a guarantee that nothing will blow up in the process; however, use cases are broader, as you can chain all sorts of things.
Looking at it now, it's actually akin to clojure's threading operator, which basically just simplifies syntax when making successive function calls (argument threading). Whatever the case, it's not just for errors/async, but more so for chaining without causing a bunch of unnecessary indents to occur.
> It seems to be a direct riff on Haskell's "do notation" syntax sugar
It's not this at all! It may seem this way at first as Gleam's `use` is used in many of the same places as Haskell's `do`, but `use` is a much more general syntax which is used for a much wider array of things. They also work very differently, `do` being constrained by types and laws, while `use` being purely a syntactic feature with no type restrictions or laws.
Wow, thanks for the reply, and correction! I look forward to learning more about Gleam, as I've just started with it, and I'm really enjoying it so far.
