[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

The comments here are great! There are even more in a previous thread on the topic: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/BnvrQt0LIN4/GHE5HVMEAAAJ On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:01:42 PM UTC-5, Zacqary Adam Xeper wrote: > > Hey Elmos, > > I've finally gotten an opportunity to pitch

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

I thought it might be clear enough from the title: "Number of Elm repos created on Github by month". Eg: There were 470 new Elm projects created on Github last month. Similarly, there were 8000+ commits to Elm projects last month. A Y-Axis title would make it much clearer though - I'll see what

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

I'd add a scale on the y axis. It would be useful to know what kind of numbers we're talking about. Said that, good gob. That's an interesting project. On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:41 AM Michael B wrote: > I just released http://elmalytics.xyz, which has some statistics on Elm

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

I just released http://elmalytics.xyz, which has some statistics on Elm usage (particularly in Github open source projects) As you can see, the number of contributions continues to grow nearly exponentially. I don't think Elm is going away any time very soon :) On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

I just released http://elmalytics.xyz, which has some statistics on Elm usage (particularly in Github open source projects) As you can see, the number of contributions continues to grow nearly exponentially. I don't think Elm is going away any time very soon :) On Thursday, November 10, 2016

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 4:02:42 PM UTC, OvermindDL1 wrote: > > In my opinion Elm really needs to have a smooth integration with > webcomponents. A webcomponent is a very small unit, something elm fits > fantastically in, has two way data-binding up/down the DOM stack, and > getting

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

Indeed, React is more of a stop-gap before full webcomponent support is out in browsers. And nowadays with webcomponents.js emulating webcomponents on about everything 'fairly' decently (although some slowly, which libraries like Polymer smooth out) it is becoming less interesting. In my

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:45:26 AM UTC+11, Ian Dickinson wrote: > > >> With respect, I'm not sure that the essence of JS fatigue is new features > of the language itself, although I suppose ES5 to ES2015 is quite a big > change. As I hear it, it's rather the explosion of build tools,

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

I think *convincing* is besides the point. Tech comes and goes. I would rather read through the features of Elm, and make a checklist. Pure functions Immutability ADTs Explicitness (avoiding type classes and other abstractions) User friendliness ... If your team buys into these features, then

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

Just a few comments: > The one thing I'm not really sure I'm prepared to answer is how I can be sure that Elm isn't just another CoffeeScript or Dart, and in 2 or 3 years we'll have an impossible time hiring anyone > > who knows how to use it because everyone's going to go back to JavaScript.

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 8:49:07 PM UTC, Francesco Orsenigo wrote: > > > CoffeeScript and Elm address two vastly different problems. > > CoffeeScript addressed "Writing JS is a pain in the ass": it was syntactic > sugar and the need for it drastically lessened with ES6. > CS was killed by

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 10:01:42 PM UTC, Zacqary Adam Xeper wrote: > > The one thing I'm not really sure I'm prepared to answer is how I can be > sure that Elm isn't just another CoffeeScript or Dart, and in 2 or 3 years > we'll have an impossible time hiring anyone who knows how to use

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

CoffeeScript and Elm address two vastly different problems. CoffeeScript addressed "Writing JS is a pain in the ass": it was syntactic sugar and the need for it drastically lessened with ES6. CS was killed by the new JS extensions. Elm addresses run time errors and JS Fatigue, neither of which

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Zacqary Adam Xeper wrote: > How do I convince Elm skeptics that this thing is here to stay? The Q session from elm-conf has a lot of great questions and great answers addressing fears, uncertainties and doubts around Elm. I would recommend

[elm-discuss] Re: Convincing my team that Elm isn't just going to die like CoffeeScript

I'd say that Elm is such an easy thing to learn that I wouldn't worry about hiring Elm devs. If people know React and Redux then they already know the principle of how Elm works, and so learning syntax and how functional programming works is quite easy. I also think No Red Ink hires people new