14 ms·
No, Elm is definitely less complex and generally targetted for newcomers to the FP and pure world. In haskell there are like a 100 ways of doing anything and i
by the_gipsy 10y ago
No, Elm is definitely less complex and generally targetted for newcomers to the FP and pure world.
In haskell there are like a 100 ways of doing anything and it's very hard (for me at least) to figure out where even to begin. Elm tries to reduce options and lets noobs like me get going.
- MustardTiger 10y agoIt seemed to me like elm reduced options all the way to zero for way too many things. Trying to do basic tasks that are trivial in ocaml and haskell ended up with me giving up completely when trying in elm. Just generating random sequences was ridiculous.
- spuz 10y agoFor what it's worth, generating random values is slightly easier with the introduction of subscriptions in 0.17. If that's the version you tried, it would be nice to see why you think Elm is unnecessarily complex compared to Haskell (which is also pure) when it comes to generating random values.
- MustardTiger 10y ago>If that's the version you tried No, it was a couple years ago. >compared to Haskell (which is also pure) But which has both a real type system and a useful set of base libraries. The lack of basic stuff like monads is really painful in elm.