I think maybe you ought to think about inverting your stance on this, because it's not necessarily virtuous to imagine that everyone repeating the same warning, over and over again, is due to some mysterious, inexplicable negativity. And it's not great to imagine that they don't know what they're talking about, or that they're just trying to scare people off with senseless FUD. Or that they didn't actually run into the problems they say they did. Or that they don't know the root cause.

Maybe a better question to be curious about is this: What can Elm do about the (self-evident in these comments, IMO) fact that a bunch of devs who really like it, feel like it's a bad choice? And, what SHOULD Elm do about that?

If a bunch of people think it's a tool foreboding enough to warn others off of it, and in the same thread some of those same people are saying they really liked that tool and wish they didn't have to do that, what benefit are you really getting from just dismissing their feedback?

Outspoken feedback is rare, just calling it negativity and paying it no mind rhymes a lot with the way Elm, writ large, has behaved. It's not indicative of a tool or ecosystem that wants to foster growth or continue development. That's part of the problem.

I disagree. I don't care what elm maintainers should or shouldn't do. It's not my problem, so that's not a question I want to ask.

I'm curious about why the same few, a vocal minority, spams every thread about elm with the same blog post. If you think we're dismissive, it's more because we don't want the discussion to be derailed for the umpteenth time.

People who make commercial decisions based on the support and development a language receives do indeed care. If you are making decisions with commercial or practical relevance you should care and not caring is negligence if you decide to use the product. Many people got burnt by the abandonment of Elm development (and yes, it has essentially been abandoned despite what the Elm community will say).

I think it's a bit disingenuous to pretend the goal of many of these critics is to improve Elm. They are clearly through with the language--as shown in their comments--and that is fine. But they're acting like they got dumped five years ago and still aren't over it.

Why would they not be over it, then? It's clearly made an impression.

They damaged the illusion of the "B" in "BDFL" with their changes in 19. Open-Source programmers like to believe that their toolchains and whatnot are egalitarian, and treat everyone as equals. Many accept the idea that the STDlib will be "more special," because its included in every copy of the language. This pill is made easy to swallow by the idea that your code, for your tool or library or whatever else, can be just as powerful as a built-in bit of code.

Elm's maintaners decided to break this. They created what amounts to a caste system for code. If your code was blessed, then it got all sorts of extra abilities not granted to un-blessed code. And the sole authority on blessing was the cadre of developers.

Now, as to why they did this is a different discussion. There are good and bad arguments on both side. But as to why it comes up all the time? Ego

That might be, but doesn't answer the question. There's plenty of tech I don't enjoy, still I don't interject myself into every discussion about those to bring it up.

It's like this meme. https://imgur.com/a/mjsMOGJ why do so many want to be the person to the left when it comes to elm? And so many years later?