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 <schrott57...@gmail.com> 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
