We have 7k lines of Elm in production, and we stopped using it because of this pain in the boundary between Elm & JS. The examples from NRI show lots of local, elm-internal logic without much API chatter or JS interop. Our app has tons of API chatter (realtime collaboration is a feature), and we have 40k lines of JS in our main SPA that any newly-elmed component would have to talk to.
We found that of our 7k loc, over 1k was in decoders & encoders! On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:54:17 AM UTC-5, Eduardo Cuducos wrote: > > This idea makes a lot of sense to me. We, as developers, could go > “automagically” from JSON to Model if they match — and the Json.Decode will > still be there if one needs to parse a JSON differently. > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:36 PM 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 4:35:06 PM UTC+1, Rupert Smith wrote: >>> >>> I also have a little problem with the 'roles' encode to solve. At the >>> moment I have: >>> >>> , ( "roles" >>> , case model.roles of >>> Just roles -> >>> roles |> List.map roleEncoder |> Encode.list >>> >>> Nothing -> >>> Encode.null >>> ) >>> >>> which will mean 'null' is output when the roles are Nothing. >>> >> >> Another option would be if Encode provided 'missing : Value', which means >> skip that field, but it doesn't. >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- 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.
