> > This comes off as an attempt to end the discussion before it begins. > Unless you know something we don't?
Well, they know Evan. :) > Will Evan never consider improvements to syntax? Of course he considers improvements to syntax! > Will he refuse to read this thread? He would be wise to refuse. > Is he the kind of person who is adverse to criticism in general? Far from it. I've never met him personally, but I'm sure he's very well-intentioned. For sure! As is everyone in this thread. :) > That said, conflict breeds evolution and improvement. It also slows down projects. If Evan spent time seriously considering every possible syntax improvement, Elm still wouldn't even have a virtual DOM system. Elm needs people to tell it that it isn't good enough, and that's what I > and the flood of past and future people wanting `where` in Elm are saying. There haven't been a "flood" of people asking for this feature. There has been a flood of *discussion* from an extremely small number of people. This is *not* a pain point for the overwhelming majority of the Elm community, and insisting otherwise primarily serves to suggest one may be overselling one's knowledge of said community. Historically, Evan has been amenable to syntax changes such as the following: - Changing a legacy syntax decision inherited from Haskell to something more user-friendly. (Examples: type alias, import Foo exposing (..), changing module Foo where to module Foo exposing (..)) - Deleting syntax from the language. (Examples: backticks, primes, ranges) - Additions in the service of a major new feature. (Examples: port, and...yeah, this language has existed for almost 5 years I can't come up with any others. I think that paints a pretty fair picture of where the bar is for new syntax to make it into the language.) I've heard Evan say "I'm not making this language to fight the syntax wars," and I think that's a sensible way to prioritize a language as ambitious as Elm. (Ambitions like someday making it the best server-side language too.) There are an unlimited number of ways Elm's syntax could potentially be improved incrementally. Considering things takes time, and if Evan spent time even considering every proposed incremental syntax improvement, no progress would ever be made on the rest of the language. At some point there has to be a bar for "this is not worth the time it would take to seriously consider it." A syntax feature that would, at best, be an incremental improvement over a status quo that only a tiny fraction of the Elm community finds objectionable...to be honest, I'd consider it pretty irresponsible of Evan as a language maintainer to spend time seriously considering whether this would be a good change to make - let alone implementing it. Carry on debating if you like, but please be aware your odds seem vanishingly low to outside observers who have been around for at least 3 years each. *PS:* I am usually in the habit of responding to rebuttals, but in the case of this thread I do not intend to post again. I've said my piece. If you find my reasoning objectionable or fallacious, fine: skewer it. It's your time. Spend it however you find most meaningful. -- 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.
