4 ms·
Its worth mentioning Elm when talking about making Javascript functional. To me Elm is like the fun sibling in the Haskell family. Signals are way easier to un
by typon 11y ago
Its worth mentioning Elm when talking about making Javascript functional. To me Elm is like the fun sibling in the Haskell family.
Signals are way easier to understand (for me personally) than monads. I just wish it had better Javascript interop. Making ports for everything to talk to an existing API (like three.js) is a deal breaker.
- innocentoldguy 11y agoI feel the same way about Elm. I am curious regarding your comment about ports though. I will admit, I haven't used ports for connecting with three.js, but I have used them to tie in with existing Javascript code during our conversion process and I thought they were pretty nice. What makes the combination of three.js and Elm ports a problem. Is it just the number of them you have to write, or is there some other pain point?
- typon 11y agoYea essentially its a matter of scale. three.js is not a small library by any means and I'm using a lot of the features. I tries to use:https://github.com/seliopou/elm-d3 https://github.com/seliopou/elm-d3 as my guide. I think it just comes down to "I don't have time to rewrite bindings for an entire API right now" because ports require you to really understand what's going on. There's no shotgun method of converting an entire API. Another reason I gave up is that Purescript does have three.js bindings.
- innocentoldguy 11y agoYeah, that makes sense. Thank you for the information.