11–20 of 450 posts
Holy Moly. Congrats on such a concise critique; I expect it's hard to spend so much work on the thing you're leaving .
0.19 introduced a new restriction on Native code (javascript), previously you could compile kernel code in your own projects, now you can't. You've never been able to publish a package using native code to the package site (only packages under the elm or elm-explorations github namespace can).
If you feel strongly about it there are ways around it, forking the compiler, or giving your project a fake "elm/whatever" name so that the compiler will build it, there is also a set of shell scripts on github that allows you to get around the restrictions. I've used it before to make some tooling to track virtual-dom performance.
The biggest miss in the post in my view is not looking more at using Custom Elements for the internationalization needs. Having a custom element where you pass in a posix time and have it formatted using the Intl APIs is very possible, and it also allows you to wrap up the interface between Elm and JS in a nice, type-safe way.
The 0.19 upgrade was fairly large, but manageable. Our app was around 70k LOC when we upgraded from 0.18 to 0.19, the upgrade was fairly smooth, and it hugely improved our build times. I had actually forked the 0.18 compiler to improve build times, full builds took around 2 minutes, and incremental builds around 45 seconds. In 0.19 full builds take 4 seconds and incremental builds less than a second.
I share in some of his experiences as well, I have had posts deleted on the Elm Discourse page for mentioning a way for someone to run a fork of a core package to get a fix. I stopped working on a private package manager for Elm after someone described an existing solution as a hostile attack on Elm.
Overall the benefits of Elm still outweigh the downsides for me, no other language I have used has made development a joy like Elm has, refactoring is honestly fun, change whatever you want, follow the compiler errors, and at the end everything works again. Packages are generally high quality and work, an Elm package that hasn't received any updates in a year probably isn't abandoned, it's finished. Coming back to code I haven't worked on in a while is easy, the type system has my back, and most Elm code looks similar due to using the elm architecture and elm-format.
Has anyone considered making a compatible fork of Elm?
I don't want to know what would ever happen if the Elm developers decide to take https://package.elm-lang.org offline. That will leave so many projects out there in an unbuildable state. Even if you saved source tarballs of the core packages, there is no way to tie it into the build yourself. The Elm compiler must load it through the official package site.
I would thus personally strongly advise against using something like Elm to build any piece of software that needs to be maintained over time. It's too much of a risk.
> For example, if there is a bug in any core library, or something missing, you just have to wait for the core team to fix it, rather than being able to fix it yourself. You might need a performance fix, which can be done using Javascript but not in Elm (lack of destructive updates makes some things very hard to implement efficiently), and again you will be stuck having to explain to your boss “I know this is possibl…
We had a pretty similar experience with elm around cookies. The elm-lang/cookie repo README starts with "Cookies are an ancient mistake of web browsers. They make a bunch of security problems quite easy, so consider this an expert library." However, they never address reading cookies, so if you're using a framework that does CSRF protection with cookies, you have to use ports, which adds quite a bit of complexity for…
Interaction style and personalities are also not part of the definition of open source; open source doesn't mean nobody is brusque or abrasive. Some communities have additional codes of conduct and social contracts and what not for that sort of thing.
Here is a balanced viewpoint from the GNU Awk and Bash maintainers:
http://www.skeeve.com/fork-my-code.html
Elm users who are not happy should fork the code --- everything, including the ecosystem's dependencies on an ELM internet domain --- and maybe produce something that is completely self-contained. Software that relies on "phoning home" is a risk regardless of where that is hosted and whether the people are nasty or nice.
If the Elm core developers don't like it and kick people out of their project for forking, you just have to bite the bullet on that.
(From the description of what that project is like, why would you care about being kicked out. Kicked out or not, your 20 line bugfix still isn't getting looked at for another two years.)
Do I love Elm? Yes, definitely. It's such a well-designed language. Lots of thought went into it. It's very focused and has great (albeit sometimes non-obvious) solutions for almost everything.
However, the leadership style is also what keeps me from recommending Elm to anyone wanting to create a project that cannot be simply rewritten in case Elm does a change that doesn't work for you. I wouldn't use Elm at work, since it would be a very high-risk situation. (In fact, I was faced with that decision and decided against Elm.) If you face a blocker, you're screwed.
A version of Elm that is being developed in the open, where people are allowed to make suggestions, where all feedback is considered valuable, where people can experiment and explore the design space without artificial limits? Yep, I would love such a thing, and I'd happily contribute.
Until that happens, I'll happily use Elm for small, personal low-risk projects. I do hope that the situation will improve once the "big rewrite" with a WASM backend is done.