4 ms·
The syntax was hardly 'arcane', and I doubt it was necessary to remove these features for the purpose of streamlining the compiler, that sounds a bit ridiculous
by leshow 10y ago
The syntax was hardly 'arcane', and I doubt it was necessary to remove these features for the purpose of streamlining the compiler, that sounds a bit ridiculous. In fact you could argue that throwing an error on functions' is actually doing more work. That really is a style thing and something best left to a linter or the like.
Evan hasn't mentioned anywhere that he's been removing features for the last year or so just to give us some big features later. If he has said that I would love to see it.
- jmite 10y agoRemoving them wasn't necessary, but it's better. Elm isn't 1.0 yet, so "does this make the language better" is the metric for feature addition or deletion.
- leshow 10y ago"better" is so arbitrary that I'm afraid it's pretty much "what does Evan-san want"
- rtfeldman 10y agoEvery other comment about these changes has expressed approval. An overwhelming majority of Elm community members I've heard discuss this feel the same way. You are welcome to a dissenting opinion, of course, but throwing shade at Evan for his popular design decisions seems unlikely to change anyone's mind.