I love the message, but the messenger is a bit over-the-top (infomercialish).
>Just the opposite! The new compiler is quite fast!
Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
121–129 of 129 posts
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151029152324/http://ericleads.... https://weblogs.asp.net/bleroy/crockford’s-2014-object-creat... Once you start doing this, most other languages become obsolete. Because you avoid most of the problems of JS that things like elm try to fix, while maintaining the freedom and also writing a lot less code because you don’t have to write a “recipe” for half the things you write. The disadvan…
Your comparison doesn't make any sense. You would use a language like Elm/Purescript/Reason etc for the type safety, that's completely orthogonal to whether something has classes or not.
Except you don’t need typesafety when you do this because you’re never expecting a specific type, and at the same time, you don’t have to waste time writing the recipe for what you’re going to do.
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#123I've used Elm/Elixir(Phoenix) in production and it's currently the best stack for web development IMHO
What about SEO? Are there problems with that?
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW you may be interested in Purescript, it's less developed than Elm but is more on-board with abstractions & the like.
It's more accurate to say PureScript has Haskell-like (or category-theoretic, if you prefer) abstractions. All high-level programming languages are on board with abstractions , pretty much by definition!
> All high-level programming languages are on board with abstractions, pretty much by definition!
They all provide abstractions, but they're not necessarily on board with letting users build new abstractions. Go is famously absolutely not on board with it for instance. Elm significantly less so — and I think the more restricted use-case also makes the issue significantly less problematic, at least it was in my (admittedly limited) experience — but it's still way downslope from the likes of Haskell or OCaml.
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comparison doesn't make any sense. You would use a language like Elm/Purescript/Reason etc for the type safety, that's completely orthogonal to whether something has classes or not.
Except you don’t need typesafety when you do this because you’re never expecting a specific type, and at the same time, you don’t have to waste time writing the recipe for what you’re going to do.
You're always expecting a specific type, whether the type or schema is made explicit by the language or not.
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's crazy to wish for some kind of interface or trait-like abstraction mechanism in a language. Anything taken to the extreme can sound stupid. edit: I'm not saying Elm should change, the time for that is long gone. Just that the idea someone would want an interface (to do things like bound on generically) isn't that far fetched.
> the time for that is long gone What makes you say that? Elm has yet to reach 1.0, anything can happen. It's not likely it will happen any time soon, however.
> What makes you say that?
Because Evan has shown no interest in implementing a feature like what I'm describing.
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found the opposite, all the momentum seems to be with Reason - I don't hear of many new people picking up Elm. A release with smaller bundle is an amazing technical achievement but doesn't really address the underlying language and ecosystem issues.
I work on Reason. The front-end pie is big enough for Elm and Reason to coexist! Elm’s (hypothetical) loss isn’t a gain for Reason, and vice-versa.
100% agree!
The world is still 99% JS and 1% every compile-to-js language put together.
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the time for that is long gone What makes you say that? Elm has yet to reach 1.0, anything can happen. It's not likely it will happen any time soon, however.
> What makes you say that? Because Evan has shown no interest in implementing a feature like what I'm describing.
That's like saying Go will never get generics because it doesn't have it right now. Evan doesn't believe type classes are a right fit for Elm, but he has never to my knowledge ruled out that ad-hoc polymorphism will be added to the language.
Re: Small Assets without the Headache in Elm 0.19
#129I've used Elm/Elixir(Phoenix) in production and it's currently the best stack for web development IMHO
What about SEO? Are there problems with that?
Atm yes. But there is a trick. Backend can check the request if it is a crawler (google, twitter and other bots) and serve a custom page for SEO. And for normal requests serve the normal SPA