4 ms·
The type system might be more powerful, my point is more that if you can bypass it and integrate directly with JS, then people will, and then much of that value
by danpalmer 8y ago
The type system might be more powerful, my point is more that if you can bypass it and integrate directly with JS, then people will, and then much of that value is lost. Elm doesn’t have that problem.
- machiaweliczny 8y agoIt lowers barrier to entry. You don't have - it's opt in. Not every project needs 100% type safety. I would also love option to have gradual type friendliness because when prototyping I know my program is wrong in some different part, but I want to test given component in runtime, while I haven't refactored everything yet. I think having option like 'compileWithoutTypecheck' is very good for prototyping.
- danpalmer 8y agoYou can use `Debug.crash` in Elm, or `error` or `undefined` in Haskell to achieve this. They type check to anything, but will halt execution if reached.
- spraak 8y agoYou can type your JS bindings
- orbifold 8y agoNot everyone has a greenfield project the fact that it integrates with JavaScript seamlessly and generates readable JavaScript is an advantage. They go as far as providing a plug-in for the standard JavaScript build flow, so you can basically start by just converting one file. On the other hand ocaml’s package manager (opam) and build system (jbuilder) are much better than elms equivalent and nothing is stopping you from using those for a greenfield project.