I watched a video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEFrE6cgVNY> from StrangeLoop 2015 and it made assertions that I think are worth considering when making decisions about Elm's future design. In summary, the presenter asserted that programming language design should be guided through the scientific method. Are semi-colons useful? Are the traditional looping constructs confusing? Which syntax is easier for newcomers to pick up on vs. which syntax makes more experienced devs more productive? It's the idea of guiding language design based on measured evidence rather than historical convention or assumed subject matter expertise.
These questions are testable hypotheses. By incorporating control groups, we can more confidently say that certain aspects of the Elm language are actually better than alternatives. Or better than competing languages. It goes farther than saying which is better. Taking a scientific approach should actually yield a better developer experience with Elm. Anyway, I think there's enough community members that we can find volunteers and run these kinds of experiments, draw conclusions, and iteratively and objectively continue to improve Elm. -- 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
