3 ms·
Agreed. It's amazing how much history is determined by small decisions. As another commenter said, Elm completely blew their chance, which is essentially down t
by noelwelsh 3y ago
Agreed. It's amazing how much history is determined by small decisions. As another commenter said, Elm completely blew their chance, which is essentially down to the actions of one guy making what seem, from the outside, obviously bad decisions. At a meta level, there has long been demand for a modern ML but all the contenders have fumbled the bag in various ways. E.g. OCaml was "nah, multi-core isn't important" for at least a decade.
- pharmakom 3y agoF# is the most popular ML derivative now. If it had a few more of the type system features in OCaml it would be perfect.
- truculent 3y ago> Elm completely blew their chance Blew their chance at what? And what trade-offs would have been necessary to take that chance? Those questions are at the heart of this talk, and I think make it clear that there is a much larger range of definitions for "success" than is often assumed. And that perhaps we should question the default definitions. Perhaps the decisions, if not the ones you would have taken, are not so obviously bad (or are at least understandable) with that in mind?