11–20 of 81 posts
From what languages is Elm inspired? I've a Java/C#/PHP/JS background and I feel really uncomfortable with Elm syntax.
https://rawgit.com/krausest/js-framework-benchmark/master/we...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree... I wish we still had the prime character. But since Elm isn't at 1.x status yet, that earns me an "irritated smirk" rather than a table-flip. :)
Yes, I am not saying it is a big thing. It's a small thing in itself, but breaking backwards compatibility for no good reason is huge red flag for the future.
From what languages is Elm inspired? I've a Java/C#/PHP/JS background and I feel really uncomfortable with Elm syntax.
From what languages is Elm inspired? I've a Java/C#/PHP/JS background and I feel really uncomfortable with Elm syntax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> breaking backwards compatibility for no good reason I'd say reducing weird syntax is a perfectly good reason. How is doing this while offering an easy migration solution in an early stage language a "huge red flag"?
> early stage language I keep hearing this excuse, and to be honest I don't like it. On one hand we want to expand the usage of Elm, and have Elm be taken seriously, on the other hand when we feel like we use the "early stage" language excuse. > I'd say reducing weird syntax is a perfectly good reason I disagree with you on this, prohibiting the users from using the prime character has nothing to do with the language…
If I didn't know what changes we're referring to, it would sound like there was some critical change to the core functionality of the language.
Instead, they're removing one weird bit of syntax. It's not an excuse that it's an early stage language - it's acknowledging reality. And an upside to that reality is that making these types of changes won't upset nearly as many people as it would if it were a more mature language.
> I disagree with you on this, for me it is very worrying.
You're not explaining why. Here (https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-plans/issues/4) are three good arguments for removing it:
1. It confuses newbies.
2. It's an easy character to miss.
3. It's easy to migrate away from it.
What are your arguments for keeping it besides the fact it's already there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I am not saying it is a big thing. It's a small thing in itself, but breaking backwards compatibility for no good reason is huge red flag for the future.
It's not at 1.0, there's no promise about preserving backwards compatibility at this point.
1. If it is not ready for prime time, maybe we should stop promoting it?
2. React was 0.14 up to a year or so ago. The number doesn't mean anything.
From what languages is Elm inspired? I've a Java/C#/PHP/JS background and I feel really uncomfortable with Elm syntax.
From what languages is Elm inspired? I've a Java/C#/PHP/JS background and I feel really uncomfortable with Elm syntax.
From what languages is Elm inspired? I've a Java/C#/PHP/JS background and I feel really uncomfortable with Elm syntax.
Because I really like syntax like Haskell (the type signature is much clearer especially in generic code compared to Java or Scala etc. for example), I'm curious, what is so uncomfortable about the syntax?
There is a wide variety of syntax among mainstream languages, but basic function calls are pretty much all the same.
Take a look at Reason [1] for an example of how a functional language (OCaml in this case) can be made more familiar.