Faithful Elm and the Amazing Router

Re:Faithful Elm and the Amazing Router by nilkn on Thursday June 16, 2016 @12:16PM (#11917092)

Could you clarify? I don't immediately see the relevance of this. Why does it matter if the compilation target is or is not also strongly typed, and how does that imply anything about the experience of using a high-level dynamically typed language vs. a high-level statically typed language?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Faithful Elm and the Amazing Router by dllthomas on Thursday June 16, 2016 @01:05PM (#11917389)

I understood the (some number of grands-)parent comment to be saying "Elixir seems a good candidate [for a compilation target]." If that was not your interpretation, then it is certainly non-sequiter. Re-reading, I think I misread something in a surrounding comment, though I'm not sure what.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Faithful Elm and the Amazing Router by kawera on Thursday June 16, 2016 @01:14PM (#11917458)

I said "Elixir seems a good candidate" for backend development, not as a compilation target. The OP asked for suggestions regarding light, friendly FP languages for backend dev.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Faithful Elm and the Amazing Router by dllthomas on Thursday June 16, 2016 @02:32PM (#11917980)

Yeah - like I said, I think I misread something up-thread, so I had the wrong context in mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]