Re:Putting Down Elm
by MustardTiger on Monday June 06, 2016 @04:36PM
(#11850117)
It seemed to me like elm reduced options all the way to zero for way too many things. Trying to do basic tasks that are trivial in ocaml and haskell ended up with me giving up completely when trying in elm. Just generating random sequences was ridiculous.
For what it's worth, generating random values is slightly easier with the introduction of subscriptions in 0.17. If that's the version you tried, it would be nice to see why you think Elm is unnecessarily complex compared to Haskell (which is also pure) when it comes to generating random values.
Re:Putting Down Elm
by MustardTiger on Monday June 06, 2016 @05:27PM
(#11850549)
>If that's the version you tried
No, it was a couple years ago.
>compared to Haskell (which is also pure)
But which has both a real type system and a useful set of base libraries. The lack of basic stuff like monads is really painful in elm.
In haskell there are like a 100 ways of doing anything and it's very hard (for me at least) to figure out where even to begin. Elm tries to reduce options and lets noobs like me get going.