4 ms·

He's actually right. The community defends even bad decisions that come from the BDFL (more like just the DFL) and cargo cult parts of the language like ports o

He's actually right. The community defends even bad decisions that come from the BDFL (more like just the DFL) and cargo cult parts of the language like ports or the inability to interface with native JS code. And there really aren't any ways to make generic functions.

the_gipsy 7y ago
Have you considered that the community just agrees? I'm happy with Elm and I don't want to sacrifice the spirit of it, just to get "big" like react or whatever. If you want to be mainstream, then there is already mainstream.
- philh 7y ago
  > I'm happy with Elm and I don't want to sacrifice the spirit of it, just to get "big" like react or whatever. This part seems to come out of nowhere? Your parent disagrees with certain design choices, but they didn't say why they disagree, and it seems unlikely to me that they disagree because they want elm to go mainstream. Unless you think that making different choices would turn elm into something mainstream? If so, I'd be interested to hear justification for that.
  - the_gipsy 7y ago
    Yea it's a bit of a strawman. It's because I've tried to follow these discussions, and usually it resolves around that. > Unless you think that making different choices would turn elm into something mainstream? If so, I'd be interested to hear justification for that. I don't think it would. It would end up being just another coffeescript without any notability. It is precisely so interesting because Evan is being pragmatic. No matter where it ends up, until now at least it is far more valuable and interesting than just another kitchensink.
    - philh 7y ago
      > It's because I've tried to follow these discussions, and usually it resolves around that. Fair enough. That hasn't been my experience, but it's not important. > It would end up being just another coffeescript without any notability. Ah, perhaps I was unclear. By "turn elm into something mainstream", I meant something like "make it indistinguishable from other mainstream things with nothing to distinguish it". That sounds like what you mean here. In any case, I don't think this is true, and I'd still be interested in hearing your reasons for thinking it. (For example, are there specific design decisions that you think (a) people are clamoring for Evan to make differently and (b) would turn Elm into something that isn't distinguished from anything else? I can't think of any. Parent seemed to be referencing kernel code, but Elm 0.18 had that, and it wasn't just another coffeescript.) > It is precisely so interesting because Evan is being pragmatic. What do you mean by "pragmatic", here? My natural interpretation would be "Evan is making compromises to the core design to make Elm easier to use", but that doesn't seem to fit. If that's what you mean I just plain disagree, and I think Evan would too. (Though, again, if that is what you mean then I'd be interested to hear your reasons for thinking it.)
      - the_gipsy 7y ago
        On the contrary, I mean that Evan sometimes makes Elm harder to use, for a long term vision. E.g. kernel.
- superdisk 7y ago
  I guess what I'm saying is that the community treats Evan Czaplicki like some sort of language design god who has carefully and artisinally crafted a revolutionary new language with no runtime errors(!!!!) when in reality it's just Haskell with all the powerful features stripped out. I really do like the paradigm of unidirectional data binding to the UI and the message system, but Elm The Language itself is basically the Go of functional programming; when you point this out on the subreddit or to a fan, you'll get banned (I have) or condescend to in the most obnoxious way, with plenty of the word "folks" peppered in.

the_gipsy 7y ago

Have you considered that the community just agrees? I'm happy with Elm and I don't want to sacrifice the spirit of it, just to get "big" like react or whatever. If you want to be mainstream, then there is already mainstream.

philh 7y ago
> I'm happy with Elm and I don't want to sacrifice the spirit of it, just to get "big" like react or whatever. This part seems to come out of nowhere? Your parent disagrees with certain design choices, but they didn't say why they disagree, and it seems unlikely to me that they disagree because they want elm to go mainstream. Unless you think that making different choices would turn elm into something mainstream? If so, I'd be interested to hear justification for that.
- the_gipsy 7y ago
  Yea it's a bit of a strawman. It's because I've tried to follow these discussions, and usually it resolves around that. > Unless you think that making different choices would turn elm into something mainstream? If so, I'd be interested to hear justification for that. I don't think it would. It would end up being just another coffeescript without any notability. It is precisely so interesting because Evan is being pragmatic. No matter where it ends up, until now at least it is far more valuable and interesting than just another kitchensink.
  - philh 7y ago
    > It's because I've tried to follow these discussions, and usually it resolves around that. Fair enough. That hasn't been my experience, but it's not important. > It would end up being just another coffeescript without any notability. Ah, perhaps I was unclear. By "turn elm into something mainstream", I meant something like "make it indistinguishable from other mainstream things with nothing to distinguish it". That sounds like what you mean here. In any case, I don't think this is true, and I'd still be interested in hearing your reasons for thinking it. (For example, are there specific design decisions that you think (a) people are clamoring for Evan to make differently and (b) would turn Elm into something that isn't distinguished from anything else? I can't think of any. Parent seemed to be referencing kernel code, but Elm 0.18 had that, and it wasn't just another coffeescript.) > It is precisely so interesting because Evan is being pragmatic. What do you mean by "pragmatic", here? My natural interpretation would be "Evan is making compromises to the core design to make Elm easier to use", but that doesn't seem to fit. If that's what you mean I just plain disagree, and I think Evan would too. (Though, again, if that is what you mean then I'd be interested to hear your reasons for thinking it.)
    - the_gipsy 7y ago
      On the contrary, I mean that Evan sometimes makes Elm harder to use, for a long term vision. E.g. kernel.
superdisk 7y ago
I guess what I'm saying is that the community treats Evan Czaplicki like some sort of language design god who has carefully and artisinally crafted a revolutionary new language with no runtime errors(!!!!) when in reality it's just Haskell with all the powerful features stripped out. I really do like the paradigm of unidirectional data binding to the UI and the message system, but Elm The Language itself is basically the Go of functional programming; when you point this out on the subreddit or to a fan, you'll get banned (I have) or condescend to in the most obnoxious way, with plenty of the word "folks" peppered in.