On Thursday, 29 December 2016 06:22:22 UTC+7, Martin DeMello wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:16 PM, GordonBGood <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Even if this method works, the interim method means I have to produce >>> JavaScript code which I understood that the purpose of Elm was to avoid. >>> If one still has to write large parts of the code in JavaScript for this >>> particular application, one then starts to ask why not use TypeScript >>> directly (c#'ish syntax) or Kotlin with the JavaScript back end (more >>> concise, can be very functional in use, quite a bit more advanced stage of >>> development than Elm). For me, these are the implied questions this thread >>> raises. >>> >> > elm certainly hasn't hit the "all things for all people" stage yet, but if > you do want to use an elm-like language with easier js interop I'd > recommend F# rather than typescript or kotlin. > > check out this blog post: > http://lucasmreis.github.io/blog/from-elm-to-fable/ >
Thanks, Martin, read and bookmarked. Looks like I'll have to do some comparisons between Fable (F#) and Kotlin. Kotlin has become my favourite JVM language due to its simplicity yet almost purely functional characteristics (about as much as F#), but I do like the F#/Elm syntax better. Related to speed, it seems to me that the working Fable (F#) code linked from your link above is more responsive than the working Elm code from another link on that page, both for the same sample application; am I imagining things or do you see that too? -- 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.
