> > I've seen agile teams that could generate lots of small changes but when > faced with needing to do something big found themselves profoundly stuck. >
In Elm? the distillation of the don't use nested TEA argument when people have > asked what to do instead has tended to be "use functions" which as I've > noted doesn't mean much in a functional language. > It means YAGNI <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/Yagni.html>. Don't overengineer it. :) As for C++ example I cited, there is nothing Elm is bringing to the table > that makes it superior to C++ in the case I described. C++ is fully > type-checked. > In Elm, if I refactor something, my typical experience is "once it compiles, it works." It's been a long time since I did C++, but my memory of that experience was a far cry from that. It sounds like your C++ refactoring experience has been close to your Elm refactoring experience, which surprises me. -- 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.
