It's important to separate the two ideas: being able to share code between client and the server was awesome and very nice - but writing Elm to work around node's model was not nice/reliable.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Joel McCracken <[email protected]> wrote: >> It was very, very nice. It allows for seemless APIs that simplified >> the code sharing a whole bunch. > > > Oh? My impression was that you thought this wasn't worth it, based upon > comments here > https://github.com/noredink/take-home#should-i-use-this-in-production and > IIRC what I've read elsewhere. > > Incidentally, I also hate the term isomorphic for shared client-server code. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
