On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Noah Hall <[email protected]> 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? Mark -- 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.
