I totally understand your points, I guess that the community hasn't come up with a long lasting solution yet so using D3 with ports is the way to go now
Thanks On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 10:05:14 PM UTC+3, Nicolas Lawler wrote: > > I looked into elm-d3 since the app I'm building will eventually have a > visualization component. What I found was that the logical conclusion of > porting d3 to elm was a system that smells a lot like the good old elm > architecture! See here > <http://computationallyendowed.com/blog/2014/07/20/reactive-mvc.html> for > a discussion of this by the author of elm-d3. Taken literally, you can make > a couple outrageous inferences from this: > > 1. d3 is good for visualization in javascript insofar as it brings > "elm-like" reactivity to the table. > 2. Vanilla elm and the elm architecture are sufficient for "d3-like" > visualization, right now. > > My hunch is that vanilla elm is not sufficient by itself, but it only > needs 1 or 2 libraries that provide view-level abstractions for common use > cases to be sufficient. As far as I know these libraries don't exist yet, > but boy would it be cool if they did. Elm could capture a whole audience of > people who are only putting up with js because of d3. > > Sorry for hijacking your thread with my personal ranting/library wishlist, > but I want see if my view of things is accurate and at least motivate more > work in this direction. > > If you're looking to get something done right now, I'd say your best bet > is to port out to d3 or another javascript visualization library. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
