4 ms·

So you're ok with an elm programmer not willing to learn JS, but not ok with the reverse. That just sounds like good old fashioned tribalism; and personally I'd

So you're ok with an elm programmer not willing to learn JS, but not ok with the reverse. That just sounds like good old fashioned tribalism; and personally I'd never hire a tribal programmer, whether that tribalism is about a great language, or the latest coolest JS framework. What I'd look for is an open, sharp mind. Willing and happy to learn new things and paradigms, even those that go beyond their comfort zones, whether it is JS, Elm or Java. Someone to whom programming languages, frameworks and libraries are just TOOLS to accomplish a certain goal, and not part of their identity.

frenchy 7y ago
I'm not sure where you're coming from, but when I'm looking for a job, I pay attention to the tools that companies have picked, and if I get the chance to ask them, why. A company that picks good tools is a lot more attractive to me. All other thigns being equal, if I had to choose between a company that used JS, and one that used JS and one that used Elm, I would prefer the Elm one. I've never written a line of Elm before. I'm willing and happy to learn new tools. I'm happy with hiking in flip-flops if that's all that's available, but I'd certainly choose hiking boots if given the choice. I suspect most "good" developers have the same attitude.
- orange8 7y ago
  > I'm not sure where you're coming from, but when I'm looking for a job We are discussing the flipside of that: looking for an employee/teammate. And I agree, a company that uses better tools is always more attractive. > would prefer the Elm one. I've never written a line of Elm before If you've never written a line in it before,how did you decide that its a better tool?
carapace 7y ago
> So you're ok with an elm programmer not willing to learn JS, but not ok with the reverse. That's not exactly the spirit of what I meant, but, yes. > That just sounds like good old fashioned tribalism I can't really control what it sounds like to you, can I? My whole point is that Elm is (or one day soon will be) much superior to JS et. al. This is a cost/benefit analysis, not tribalism. (I'm not an Elm fanboy. I don't actually like it that much, in fact.) It's puzzling that more JS programmers don't adopt Elm. It's reasonable for an Elm developer to ignore JS to the extent possible. That's the point of Elm, eh? > What I'd look for is an open, sharp mind. Willing and happy to learn new things and paradigms, even those that go beyond their comfort zones, whether it is JS, Elm or Java. Someone to whom programming languages, frameworks and libraries are just TOOLS to accomplish a certain goal, and not part of their identity. Sure! Me too. But now I can make the scarcity argument, no? And you've got to pay those folks well, eh? I'm postulating that you can take normal people (smart enough to solve Sudoku) and have them productive in Elm within a month or so. You probably would not have to pay them as much as an equivalently-productive JS programmer, and certainly not as much as the kind of person you described. Again, I'm talking about the business value of a given software production tool not the entertainment value or the personal-growth value for the devs.
- orange8 7y ago
  > My whole point is that Elm is (or one day soon will be) much superior to JS et. al. This is a cost/benefit analysis, not tribalism. I'm sorry, but your enthusiasm for Elm might be blinding your reasoning. JS is an EXTREMELY flexible languange. Open and malleble to both experts and newbies alike. Open to all styles and paradgims of programming including object and functional, which is what makes it possible to be the worlds most compiled to languange (https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-langu...). Elm comes nowhere close to beating the JS cost benefit analysis. In the end, the business value always wins out. Elm, started in 2012 is even older than react, and would've took of long ago if it had any business value. > It's puzzling that more JS programmers don't adopt Elm. JS developers come from diverse backgrounds (expert, newbie, functional, object, procedural etc). The ones that like elms approach will adopt it, those that don't will use a different style/compiler/transpiler; and it all ends up as JS. That's flexibility at work.
  - carapace 7y ago
    > your enthusiasm for Elm As I said, I'm not an Elm fanboy. I don't actually like it that much. > JS is an EXTREMELY flexible languange. Open and malleble to both experts and newbies alike. Open to all styles and paradgims of programming including object and functional Sure. So what? So is LISP. I'm talking about "business value", meaning: if you don't care about how shiny and flexible and open your programmers' languages are, you care about the hard $$$ cost of development and maintainence per unit of webapp functionality delivered, then Elm makes a heck of a lot more sense than JS+etc. The compiler and the fact that you get zero front-end errors just blows away the typical JS dev cycle with a buggy front-end. I can't quantify it because you can't quantify the hypothetical lost business due to hypothetical bugs that don't happen because you're not using JS. To me it seems clear that it is much cheaper to develop and maintain Elm apps. > what makes it possible to be the worlds most compiled to languange Nah. That's because it's the only language in the browser and people would rather use something else. > Elm, started in 2012 is even older than react, and would've took of long ago if it had any business value. You're begging the question I think, my whole puzzlement is that the business value seems very clear yet Elm hasn't taken off. To date, the only serious objection I've heard here and elsewhere is that they removed older docs when they bumped a minor version number. That sucks.

frenchy 7y ago

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but when I'm looking for a job, I pay attention to the tools that companies have picked, and if I get the chance to ask them, why. A company that picks good tools is a lot more attractive to me. All other thigns being equal, if I had to choose between a company that used JS, and one that used JS and one that used Elm, I would prefer the Elm one. I've never written a line of Elm before. I'm willing and happy to learn new tools. I'm happy with hiking in flip-flops if that's all that's available, but I'd certainly choose hiking boots if given the choice. I suspect most "good" developers have the same attitude.

orange8 7y ago
> I'm not sure where you're coming from, but when I'm looking for a job We are discussing the flipside of that: looking for an employee/teammate. And I agree, a company that uses better tools is always more attractive. > would prefer the Elm one. I've never written a line of Elm before If you've never written a line in it before,how did you decide that its a better tool?

carapace 7y ago

> So you're ok with an elm programmer not willing to learn JS, but not ok with the reverse. That's not exactly the spirit of what I meant, but, yes. > That just sounds like good old fashioned tribalism I can't really control what it sounds like to you, can I? My whole point is that Elm is (or one day soon will be) much superior to JS et. al. This is a cost/benefit analysis, not tribalism. (I'm not an Elm fanboy. I don't actually like it that much, in fact.) It's puzzling that more JS programmers don't adopt Elm. It's reasonable for an Elm developer to ignore JS to the extent possible. That's the point of Elm, eh? > What I'd look for is an open, sharp mind. Willing and happy to learn new things and paradigms, even those that go beyond their comfort zones, whether it is JS, Elm or Java. Someone to whom programming languages, frameworks and libraries are just TOOLS to accomplish a certain goal, and not part of their identity. Sure! Me too. But now I can make the scarcity argument, no? And you've got to pay those folks well, eh? I'm postulating that you can take normal people (smart enough to solve Sudoku) and have them productive in Elm within a month or so. You probably would not have to pay them as much as an equivalently-productive JS programmer, and certainly not as much as the kind of person you described. Again, I'm talking about the business value of a given software production tool not the entertainment value or the personal-growth value for the devs.

orange8 7y ago
> My whole point is that Elm is (or one day soon will be) much superior to JS et. al. This is a cost/benefit analysis, not tribalism. I'm sorry, but your enthusiasm for Elm might be blinding your reasoning. JS is an EXTREMELY flexible languange. Open and malleble to both experts and newbies alike. Open to all styles and paradgims of programming including object and functional, which is what makes it possible to be the worlds most compiled to languange (https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-langu...). Elm comes nowhere close to beating the JS cost benefit analysis. In the end, the business value always wins out. Elm, started in 2012 is even older than react, and would've took of long ago if it had any business value. > It's puzzling that more JS programmers don't adopt Elm. JS developers come from diverse backgrounds (expert, newbie, functional, object, procedural etc). The ones that like elms approach will adopt it, those that don't will use a different style/compiler/transpiler; and it all ends up as JS. That's flexibility at work.
- carapace 7y ago
  > your enthusiasm for Elm As I said, I'm not an Elm fanboy. I don't actually like it that much. > JS is an EXTREMELY flexible languange. Open and malleble to both experts and newbies alike. Open to all styles and paradgims of programming including object and functional Sure. So what? So is LISP. I'm talking about "business value", meaning: if you don't care about how shiny and flexible and open your programmers' languages are, you care about the hard $$$ cost of development and maintainence per unit of webapp functionality delivered, then Elm makes a heck of a lot more sense than JS+etc. The compiler and the fact that you get zero front-end errors just blows away the typical JS dev cycle with a buggy front-end. I can't quantify it because you can't quantify the hypothetical lost business due to hypothetical bugs that don't happen because you're not using JS. To me it seems clear that it is much cheaper to develop and maintain Elm apps. > what makes it possible to be the worlds most compiled to languange Nah. That's because it's the only language in the browser and people would rather use something else. > Elm, started in 2012 is even older than react, and would've took of long ago if it had any business value. You're begging the question I think, my whole puzzlement is that the business value seems very clear yet Elm hasn't taken off. To date, the only serious objection I've heard here and elsewhere is that they removed older docs when they bumped a minor version number. That sucks.