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.
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
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.