On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Noah Hall <enali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would agree though,
> that if you are intended to rely on the existing JS/CSS libraries out
> there, you are probably better off investing time in making Elm part
> of your site, not making Elm your whole site. You will spend too much
> time like this otherwise

Having spent plenty of times working with teams on mixed language/runtime apps 
over the last 13 years, I have had it hammered home for me that if you have to 
routinely jump back and forth across the fence and one-side of the fence is 
theoretically sufficient on its own, the insufficient side has to be incredibly 
compelling to make it worthwhile.

Applying this to Elm, the backdoor to JavaScript is vital to handle the cases 
that Elm does not handle, but every time one has to use that door, the value 
Elm needs to deliver in order to get one to come back goes up substantially.

Peter's case seems like it presents a useful opportunity to look at the balance 
of gains v costs. To Peter, then, goes the question: Which costs were just too 
much to bear?


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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to