I'd say reducing weird syntax is a perfectly good reason. How is doing this while offering an easy migration solution in an early stage language a "huge red flag"?
There's a very good example in C++ of how this causes problems, where vector::clear and vector::empty are much too easy to confuse (which one of them deletes all elements, and which one of them checks if a vector is empty?). Replacing them with clear! and empty? (or is it clear? and empty!) would be a huge improvement. Whenever a language moves away from arbitrary legacy restrictions, that's a good thing.
Edit: Plus, then you don't have to wonder if that particular function follows that naming convention; prime meaning strict isn't nearly as universally followed as ? or ! in Scheme, for instance.
I keep hearing this excuse, and to be honest I don't like it. On one hand we want to expand the usage of Elm, and have Elm be taken seriously, on the other hand when we feel like we use the "early stage" language excuse.
> I'd say reducing weird syntax is a perfectly good reason
I disagree with you on this, prohibiting the users from using the prime character has nothing to do with the language's syntax.
If I didn't know what changes we're referring to, it would sound like there was some critical change to the core functionality of the language.
Instead, they're removing one weird bit of syntax. It's not an excuse that it's an early stage language - it's acknowledging reality. And an upside to that reality is that making these types of changes won't upset nearly as many people as it would if it were a more mature language.
> I disagree with you on this, for me it is very worrying.
You're not explaining why. Here (https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-plans/issues/4) are three good arguments for removing it:
1. It confuses newbies.
2. It's an easy character to miss.
3. It's easy to migrate away from it.
What are your arguments for keeping it besides the fact it's already there?
No, I acknowledged early on, and many times, that it is a very minor thing. My only concern is that it is worrying for the future. (Using the word huge in the "huge red flag" was an exaggeration. I shouldn't have done so).
> 1. It confuses newbies.
Remove it from core language then. Having the prime character in my code, doesn't confuse anyone but me.
Is a language that allows Unicode characters for variable names confusing for newbies?
> 2. It's an easy character to miss.
Again, it is in my code.
> 3. It's easy to migrate away from it.
That's not an argument for removing something.
Again, my point is that is has to do with personal taste, yet Evan decided to force it to anybody who uses the language.
He could have very easily enforce it to core packages, and nobody would complain. But forcing it on my code, is worrying.
Until you take your personal style to Github, or coworkers...
Evan is doing a pretty good job at managing Elm – in fact I don't know any other language except maybe Swift where the rollout is planned to such a depth.
