Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Max Goldstein wrote: > What I meant was, Elm needs to choose differently from Haskell, at least > some of the time, or else there wouldn't be a reason for it to exist. It's the Object Oriented Programming. More precisely, the "fixed

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

> > Nobody has done this (or similar) yet, to my knowledge My knowledge was wrong, apparently! On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Oliver Searle-Barnes wrote: > I'm surprised this hasn't come up already, http://package.elm-lang.org/ > packages/eeue56/elm-all-dict/latest > > --

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

I'm surprised this hasn't come up already, http://package.elm-lang.org/packages/eeue56/elm-all-dict/latest -- 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

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

Something else that hasn't been said: I don't think people have pushed current Elm to its limit yet. The big example is Dict. It is possible, in Elm, to write a dictionary which has its key type as a type parameter, which takes as an argument the comparison function between keys. This would allow

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

I think I recall Evan talking about this in one of his talks (I want to say strangeloop?). The gist of it was that it's fine that Elm isn't Haskell (or language x). Haskell people have ghcjs and purescript, and really they should use those if they don't like Elm so that everyone is happier.

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

I think that was quite well put. I agree. 2016-11-10 22:04 GMT+01:00 ‘Andrew Radford’ via Elm Discuss < elm-discuss@googlegroups.com>: > On Thursday, 10 November 2016 20:49:08 UTC, Max Goldstein wrote: >> >> What I meant was, Elm needs to choose differently from Haskell, at least >> some of

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

On Thursday, 10 November 2016 20:49:08 UTC, Max Goldstein wrote: > > What I meant was, Elm needs to choose differently from Haskell, at least > some of the time, or else there wouldn't be a reason for it to exist. And, > what seems weak and limited to one person can seem friendly and >

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

Okay, fair enough, we shouldn't aspire to piss off anyone. Also, I apologize for speaking for everyone instead of just me. What I meant was, Elm needs to choose differently from Haskell, at least some of the time, or else there wouldn't be a reason for it to exist. And, what seems weak and

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

On Thursday, 10 November 2016 19:01:38 UTC, Janis Voigtländer wrote: > > > "We" means the Elm community. > > > I disagree with the first sentence, then. "That the Elm community is > pissing off Haskellers is good" is not something I agree to. > Neither do I. Or for that matter "...for JS

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

> "We" means the Elm community. I disagree with the first sentence, then. "That the Elm community is pissing off Haskellers is good" is not something I agree to. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

"We" means the Elm community. I did not know that records are not comparable. I suppose they aren't useful as Dict keys, and we have sortBy .field for sorting lists of them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

Finally, the fact that we're pissing off Haskellers is good. We're not > making the language for them. We're making it for JS developers and those > new to programming. Sorry, I have to ask: Who is “we” in each of those three sentences? ​ -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

Max: when is a 7-element tuple more useful than a record with named fields? For > any purpose, not just comparison? Is this “not just comparison” meant in an ironic way? Records with named fields are not comparable, so if you were to suggest they should be used in place of 7-tuples for

[elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

More coherent post here... first, don't freak out, this is from April. I think I've seen it before. One argument that's at least worth debating is: There is no map function, but there are List.map, Dict.map, Array.map among > others, and none of them are related to one another. This is not

[elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

+1 to Peter's post, and relatedly: when is a 7-element tuple more useful than a record with named fields? For any purpose, not just comparison? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

It is unbelievable, how many upvotes that blog post got in hacker news. (currently 331) I lost all my respect to hacker news community. I think that being aggressive and saying things like > *fuck you and your 6-element-max comparable tuples* attracts people. It is like Trump. He just

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

+1 This really is a challenge for Evan. Being a BDFL probably is *really* hard. Especially convincing people of the 'B' part! In practice this means explaining language decisions to newcomers in a way that does not appear like a slap-down, and reining in the the 'lieutenants' (as you say) who

[elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:27:50 PM UTC, Gaëtan André wrote: > > Hello, > > A bit of a bad buzz today around Elm: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12906119 > > As a newcomer it puzzles me. What are your opinions on it? > Thats funny, he doesn't seem very interested in writing his

[elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

Both articles are quite shallow. In particular, the first one only focuses on one (lack of) feature of the language. No talk about the rest of the language (is it expressive enough?), the Elm architecture, the interop with JS/TS, how easy/hard it is to write rich custom components, etc. On

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

+1 On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:20 Kasey Speakman, wrote: > I read the article. > > Summary: "I expected Elm to be much more like Haskell, but it wasn't. > Therefore, I'm exerting all my saved-up anger." > > Meanwhile, I'm getting actual work done in Elm. > > Elm's not perfect,

[elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm really wrong?

This is a nice retort. http://www.gizra.com/content/elm-business-perspective/ Let's not forget, Elm is a young language. I think a roadmap that is in no particular order would be helpful. Just a list of things that are on the TODO list ...no timeframe. On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at