Robin: I would just keep everything in one Elm app, then use a router to display > the correct page.
The problem I see with this is that our app is not SPA, so each page that needs an Elm app would need to load a big blob of JS with dependencies of all the Elm modules in our source code. When it comes to google closure, Elm only works with SimpleOptimizations. Thanks for the info, I was under the impression that it worked okay with advanced optimizations. In any case, the difference between Google Closure and Uglify is very small > when it comes to Elm. Yeah, that's why I eventually gave up – the few KBs of reduced size were not worth the time I spent figuring out how to make this all work with Closure Compiler. ;) Noah: So you use a similar setup to what I described, right? I assume that by "a unique Elm app" you mean "a main module" and that all the main modules share a single elm-package.json. This is ideal in terms of build time and reliabitly, as everything can be > built and once and share a single lot of packages. Yeah, definitely. Another advantage for me is what I mentioned earlier: it can be easily plugged in to our existing workflow with webpack. -- 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.
