what's the betting, typescript3 implements immutable data structures, and everyone will be cooing about them (like they are know with non-nullable types ; ) imo, immutability is the biggest missing feature in js...
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 at 00:06 Zinggi <[email protected]> wrote: > > And all this stuff about immutability, can be easily achieved in plain > javaScript. > > You claim that you can achieve all the the things that elm does by being > disciplined enough, but that's not true. Here are a few things that only > elm can provide that JavaScript can't. > These things are only possible because of elms limitations: > > - Easy serialization/deserialization of application state *including > state from external libraries* > - *Enforced semantic versioning* for all packages > - A sane package ecosystem > - A time traveling debugger *that works no matter what code you write > or libraries you use* > - *No runtime exceptions* > > So by removing a bunch of features from JavaScript, namely mutable > variables and arbitrary side effects, elm can provide all the above. > > On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 19:50:52 UTC+2, Sarkis Arutiunian wrote: > > Recently I read article about Functional programming, all 5 parts > <https://medium.com/@cscalfani/so-you-want-to-be-a-functional-programmer-part-1-1f15e387e536#.5il2s42gl>. > Yes it's pretty interesting article, written in interesting way. And I > really like pattern of 'functional programming', immutability and etc. > > > But there is a question. Where the line between propriety and paranoia? > > > I prefer use native javaScript for everything where I can do it without > any libraries. Yes exactly you should use some UI libraries like React and > some module bundler like webpack. But I think propriety of using this tools > is obvious. It's better to use JSX then use native js to create DOM or it's > better to use webpack at least to uglify and optimize your code because > some things just impossible to achieve without webpack. > > And we have absolutely opposite situation with Elm. Yes they have some > features to make function a little bit shorter than you'll do it in vanilla > javaScript and only in some case. It's not that difference like create > nodes with JSX or js. > > > And all this stuff about immutability, can be easily achieved in plain > javaScript. Eventually is Elm code will be converted to plain javaScript > and not vice versa, so that's mean you can do all that stuff in javaScript > but for sure there are some features in javaScript which you can't do in > Elm. And using Elm you are limited with one pattern. And what if it's not > enough or it's not best solution in some case, what than? For example right > now I'm working on new CMS for one of my projects, on React/GraphQL/Nodejs > and hybrid storage MongoDb with mySQL. I would like to use this pattern in > some cases but I just can't use it everywhere, so that's mean I shouldn't > use Elm? > > > Don't think that I'm against to Elm. I just want to see opinion of others. > And I want to see that line, between propriety and paranoia. > > > Thanks. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
