5 ms·

Sad that they have to put a massive "Non-goals" full of emojis so the main Elm team does't feel threated. A languange doesn't lose anything with an extra compi

Sad that they have to put a massive "Non-goals" full of emojis so the main Elm team does't feel threated. A languange doesn't lose anything with an extra compiler - a competing compiler is actually what Elm needs right now.

vanderZwan 5y ago
I don't see how the emojis have anything to do with that section, since they're all over the readme anyway. Aside from that: what they're stating is that they "don't want to and aren't planning to divide the community into multiple Elm derivatives, and will actively try to prevent that". Not dividing the community is not the same thing as threatening the main Elm team. And for a smallish language like Elm it makes sense to me that they want to keep everyone on the same team.
- tester89 5y ago
  I assume it's a reference to https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-im-leaving-elm/ https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-im-leaving-elm/
- lisardman 5y ago
  To give a bit context, Elm main team has been defensive against forks. They are preventing development of features they don’t think worth to them. It’s not possible to publish packages with low-level access without Elm main team approval. The compiler even has built-in DRM about that. My point is more compilers is exactly what Elm needs to flourish. C has several compilers. Python has even”jython”. That doesn’t make a language community weaker.
  - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
    We may live to see the day, hopefully, (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) where language designers join the 1970's and learn about open standards. Their mind will be blown, probably.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - square_usual 5y ago
    > It’s not possible to publish packages with low-level access without Elm main team approval. The compiler even has built-in DRM about that. Not calling you out or anything, but could you give a reference on that? I'm curious about what they're doing with a "DRM" in the compiler.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - lisardman 5y ago
      > Not calling you out or anything, but could you give a reference on that? I'm curious about what they're doing with a "DRM" in the compiler. Check tester89 link - it’s the description about the state of Elm right now. Author’s experience matches my personal one.
    - prophesi 5y ago
      This[0] is actually a better reference; the official post by Elm's creator on how accessing "native" code used to work, and how it now works. Essentially, the compiler only allows packages published by two official Elm Github organizations to include native code. I'm not sure what the process is if a key "native" feature is missing, as this limitation also drove me away from the language. [0] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/native-code-in-0-19/826 https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/native-code-in-0-19/826
  - cies 5y ago
    > Elm main team has been defensive against forks What does that mean? I know they have a strict vision of what features are better left out, and in a way I wish more langs'd be vocal about that. Go does the same and they seem to get a lot of praise for it. Just like in Go, the Elm team only allows some features to be used by their own (std-) libraries. This, again, is a design choice. No group was hurt enough to "fork" Elm. PureScript can be seen as a close relative that is less restrictive.
    - donatj 5y ago
      Go is open to forks and PRs though. It’s more “we’ve got a vision, but we’ll hear you out”. Elm is full cathedral, Elm comes down from the gods with no input or transparency into the decision process. The Elm developers have a history of ostracizing people who even mention the possibility of forks from the community; tester89 posted a link with a lot of good context. They take a very heavy handed and adversarial stance to development. I had just started getting into Elm when the news of .19 basically breaking everything and the core team just brushing off peoples cries and it soured me on the entire language. When pre-v1 Go broke things, `go fix` was there to at least try and help.
      - antew 5y ago
        There was a similar project to `go fix` with elm-upgrade (https://github.com/avh4/elm-upgrade https://github.com/avh4/elm-upgrade). We migrated a ~100k LOC app at work from 0.18 to 0.19 and while it was tedious, the compiler really has your back and makes it easier. We weren't bit by the removal of native/kernel code, but it definitely turned a lot of people away that may have been committed to Elm before.
        girishso 5y ago
        True that. We also ported our Elm codebase from 0.18 to 0.19. It took us almost a week working almost 24/7 across two timezones to make the damn thing compile again. Did not see the UI for the entire week, but once it compiled it (mostly) just worked like nothing had changed (that's after 429 files changed, 16422 insertions(+), 12116 deletions(-)). My colleague took notes of the progress at https://gist.github.com/mordrax/efcd34739ed56bb64d2b12d2401b7291 https://gist.github.com/mordrax/efcd34739ed56bb64d2b12d2401b...
  - terezasokol 5y ago
    > Elm main team has been defensive against forks You're more than welcome to create a fork, as long as you name it something else. This is so people are not confused as to what they are getting into! :)

vanderZwan 5y ago

I don't see how the emojis have anything to do with that section, since they're all over the readme anyway. Aside from that: what they're stating is that they "don't want to and aren't planning to divide the community into multiple Elm derivatives, and will actively try to prevent that". Not dividing the community is not the same thing as threatening the main Elm team. And for a smallish language like Elm it makes sense to me that they want to keep everyone on the same team.

tester89 5y ago
I assume it's a reference to https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-im-leaving-elm/ https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-im-leaving-elm/
lisardman 5y ago
To give a bit context, Elm main team has been defensive against forks. They are preventing development of features they don’t think worth to them. It’s not possible to publish packages with low-level access without Elm main team approval. The compiler even has built-in DRM about that. My point is more compilers is exactly what Elm needs to flourish. C has several compilers. Python has even”jython”. That doesn’t make a language community weaker.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  We may live to see the day, hopefully, (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) where language designers join the 1970's and learn about open standards. Their mind will be blown, probably.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- square_usual 5y ago
  > It’s not possible to publish packages with low-level access without Elm main team approval. The compiler even has built-in DRM about that. Not calling you out or anything, but could you give a reference on that? I'm curious about what they're doing with a "DRM" in the compiler.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lisardman 5y ago
    > Not calling you out or anything, but could you give a reference on that? I'm curious about what they're doing with a "DRM" in the compiler. Check tester89 link - it’s the description about the state of Elm right now. Author’s experience matches my personal one.
  - prophesi 5y ago
    This[0] is actually a better reference; the official post by Elm's creator on how accessing "native" code used to work, and how it now works. Essentially, the compiler only allows packages published by two official Elm Github organizations to include native code. I'm not sure what the process is if a key "native" feature is missing, as this limitation also drove me away from the language. [0] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/native-code-in-0-19/826 https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/native-code-in-0-19/826
- cies 5y ago
  > Elm main team has been defensive against forks What does that mean? I know they have a strict vision of what features are better left out, and in a way I wish more langs'd be vocal about that. Go does the same and they seem to get a lot of praise for it. Just like in Go, the Elm team only allows some features to be used by their own (std-) libraries. This, again, is a design choice. No group was hurt enough to "fork" Elm. PureScript can be seen as a close relative that is less restrictive.
  - donatj 5y ago
    Go is open to forks and PRs though. It’s more “we’ve got a vision, but we’ll hear you out”. Elm is full cathedral, Elm comes down from the gods with no input or transparency into the decision process. The Elm developers have a history of ostracizing people who even mention the possibility of forks from the community; tester89 posted a link with a lot of good context. They take a very heavy handed and adversarial stance to development. I had just started getting into Elm when the news of .19 basically breaking everything and the core team just brushing off peoples cries and it soured me on the entire language. When pre-v1 Go broke things, `go fix` was there to at least try and help.
    - antew 5y ago
      There was a similar project to `go fix` with elm-upgrade (https://github.com/avh4/elm-upgrade https://github.com/avh4/elm-upgrade). We migrated a ~100k LOC app at work from 0.18 to 0.19 and while it was tedious, the compiler really has your back and makes it easier. We weren't bit by the removal of native/kernel code, but it definitely turned a lot of people away that may have been committed to Elm before.
      - girishso 5y ago
        True that. We also ported our Elm codebase from 0.18 to 0.19. It took us almost a week working almost 24/7 across two timezones to make the damn thing compile again. Did not see the UI for the entire week, but once it compiled it (mostly) just worked like nothing had changed (that's after 429 files changed, 16422 insertions(+), 12116 deletions(-)). My colleague took notes of the progress at https://gist.github.com/mordrax/efcd34739ed56bb64d2b12d2401b7291 https://gist.github.com/mordrax/efcd34739ed56bb64d2b12d2401b...
- terezasokol 5y ago
  > Elm main team has been defensive against forks You're more than welcome to create a fork, as long as you name it something else. This is so people are not confused as to what they are getting into! :)