[jolux]

If you’re chaining more than three or four things together I think you’re definitely doing something wrong but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen someone do that in Elixir.

[1_player]

I disagree. I think a common antipattern is piping only one thing.

This is good and readable:

    nuclear_missile
    |> open_hatch()
    |> open_fuel_lines()
    |> fire_thrusters(:all)
    |> configure_gps(%Coordinates{...})

This is unnecessary:

    word_count = 
      words
      |> Enum.count()

This is better:

    word_count = Enum.count(words)

Pipes read like a list of bullet points. We can easily deal with up to a dozen bullet points, but a single bullet point is bad grammar style.

[cultofmetatron]

the entire ecto api is built upon chaining statements together. I have a few queries that are 8-10 statements long.

[jolux]

Good point, I don’t use Ecto so I wasn’t aware of this.

[dnautics]

Not an antipattern for nimble_parsec: https://github.com/ityonemo/zigler/blob/fe845a9fbbfef92da8ab...

Plus think of how much easier that pipe makes it for you to understand what is going on.

[jolux]

That’s a very beautiful usage of it. I hadn’t thought of it as a way to construct DSLs, but it makes a lot of sense here.

[owl57]

Looks like Haskell-like do notation would be helpful.

[dnautics]

do you feel like the code presented is broken? I don't. Could it be better? Maybe... But how much? Is it worth a whole new pattern to learn?

[Kaze404]

My longest pipe chain in Elixir so far (with ~1 year of usage) is this[1], where I build a GraphQL context from an HTTP session. I personally think it's clean enough, but your comment made me wonder if it can be better.

[1] https://github.com/RodrigoLeiteF/craftup/blob/main/backend/l...