3 ms·
My first thought: The author would probably be equally satisfied if they had used JavaScript with flowtype and react. It sounds like they're comparing JQuery +
by seveibar 9y ago
My first thought: The author would probably be equally satisfied if they had used JavaScript with flowtype and react. It sounds like they're comparing JQuery + Bootstrap (and similar "old" frontend frameworks) to Elm.
I think the point still stands that unpopular frameworks/languages can still be stable and more effective than popular frameworks.
- ghthor 9y agoPerhaps, but with Elm you get a much better experience revolving about the tooling(Inspired from Golang I believe). This would be one of my top arguments for picking Elm over a giant mess of react+infinite choices of libraries and configurations.
- ajmurmann 9y agoNot the author, but I've used React + Redux and Flowtype and played a little bit with Elm. Elm felt so much cleaner, the typing was great and it was a breeze to learn. I'm certain I'll go with Elm on my next web project.
- Rotareti 9y agoI can't speak for the author, but I made the transition from JS+React to TypeScript+React to Elm and it "changed my mind" too. When I started with React/Redux, I didn't know much about functional programming, but I developed a certain interest... A couple years later my React stack was full of tools and libraries that allowed me to write my React apps in a more functional manner. I used TypeScript for the type system, ImmutbaleJS for immutable data structures, Ramda as a FP utility library and Recompose to call React itself in a functional manner. I also used pure stateless components exclusively... Then I switched to Elm and I realized, that the React stack I was working with was a crippled version of Elm. I'm currently writing my first app in Elm and it feels much smoother.