Understanding UI Components in Elm • Hacker News Board

Re: Understanding UI Components in Elm

#41

Post by Existenceblinks » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

dvdhnt wrote: post #35

Existenceblinks wrote: post #19

Typescript people pretend to love type system and its benefits while ignoring languages like this which has type designed from ground up. If Elm had some ways to easily preserve object reference (something like `mut` something or reference type like in Webassembly), that would unlock a lot of js interop stories rather than just `port`.

Personally, I just don't enjoy writing Elm and much prefer TypeScript. For me, TS is great because of the community, tooling, and its self-documenting nature.

It's great for keeping status quo, anything is great if it's already there. Community and tooling is the result of that, things that exist for a while. But if we want to move forward, advancing tech, TS is just ok-ish (at some point it's not though)

Re: Understanding UI Components in Elm

#42

Post by Existenceblinks » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 3:45 PM UTC

nsonha wrote: post #39

Existenceblinks wrote: post #19

Typescript people pretend to love type system and its benefits while ignoring languages like this which has type designed from ground up. If Elm had some ways to easily preserve object reference (something like `mut` something or reference type like in Webassembly), that would unlock a lot of js interop stories rather than just `port`.

Why does elm need to exist? If I want the "ground up type system", I'd go for haskell, something more user friendly or UI oriented then F# with fable. A functional language just for UI is too niche, waste of brain space.

Because value / cost is lower, it's much simpler, yet powerful. However, it's unfortunate that its social cost is higher.

Re: Understanding UI Components in Elm

#43

Post by TheMatten » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 11:54 AM UTC

nsonha wrote: post #39

Existenceblinks wrote: post #19

Typescript people pretend to love type system and its benefits while ignoring languages like this which has type designed from ground up. If Elm had some ways to easily preserve object reference (something like `mut` something or reference type like in Webassembly), that would unlock a lot of js interop stories rather than just `port`.

Why does elm need to exist? If I want the "ground up type system", I'd go for haskell, something more user friendly or UI oriented then F# with fable. A functional language just for UI is too niche, waste of brain space.

Well, you can't easily use Haskell on web, at least not yet. But there's Purescript, which comes with both anonymous records and Haskell2010-ish type system with some extensions and may be an interesting choice.

Re: Understanding UI Components in Elm

#44

Post by lucamug » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 10:36 PM UTC

GiorgioG wrote: post #21

Existenceblinks wrote: post #19

Typescript people pretend to love type system and its benefits while ignoring languages like this which has type designed from ground up. If Elm had some ways to easily preserve object reference (something like `mut` something or reference type like in Webassembly), that would unlock a lot of js interop stories rather than just `port`.

No, we ignore Elm because it has a bus-factor of one.

Using Elm in production for years. Still waiting for the bus :-)