3 ms·
No tuples: I found this to trade some convinience (no need to name anything)for worse refactoring (adding a value to a tuple or reordering the fields breaks eve
by Skinney 3y ago
No tuples: I found this to trade some convinience (no need to name anything)for worse refactoring (adding a value to a tuple or reordering the fields breaks everything, doing the same to a record doesn’t).
I also improved pattern matching on records to make them more ergonomic.
No automatic record constructors: same as the above, but in my experience it also confused beginners.
I know of several that actively avoids it in their projects, even enforcing it with a linter rule.
No GLSL: never used it, and don’t know how it works. It also broke when I upgraded the version of the Haskell compiler (Gren’s compiler is written in Haskell). For those reasons, it was removed.
No reactor: never used it
- scns 3y ago> No tuples: I found this to trade some convinience (no need to name anything)for worse refactoring (adding a value to a tuple or reordering the fields breaks everything, doing the same to a record doesn’t). Did you mean better refactoring?
- christophilus 3y agoHe means the tuple feature is convenient but makes refactoring harder than if you instead used a record.
- sli 3y agoI've long moved beyond Elm, but I'd be surprised is anyone really used reactor. It seemed so completely unfit for purpose and was almost immediately useless if your project was more than a single file. elm-live was simply a requirement no matter how much I tried to avoid adding in extra tooling.