3 ms·

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 differen

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.

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.