It's an interesting perspective, but Matz is doing what's right for ruby. Ruby is dynamically typed; Elm is statically typed. Ruby is mature and has a lot of users counting on stability; Elm is pre-1.0 and has a smaller, more adventurous user base. Granted we have upgrade guides and elm-format to help with new releases, but it's still somewhat painful. But I'm hopeful because 0.19 is focusing mostly on elm-package and not the language itself (last I heard) which may mean the big breaking changes are mostly behind us.
That said, Elm likes DRY but not to a fault. It's possible to refactor code in Ruby and, if not Elm, Haskell, that is twice and short and three times as cryptic. Elm's annotations are helpful when programming, enforced by the compiler, and used in documentation. It reflects the curried nature of Elm functions. I think type annotations are great, and so do most Elm users. They should stay exactly how they are, except perhaps for tooling to help you fill them in. -- 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.
