undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaszen5y ago0 comments

I think the main difference apart from syntax and lack of higher order functionality is that with elm you have to embrace the language restrictions and not try to fight them.

The lack of advanced features can be frustrating for an experienced haskell dev but it forces the api's to be simpler and more approachable.

So the major thing to be wary of is the change in mindset one has to go through.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

Eugeleo5y ago· 2 in thread

By "lack of higher order functionality" you mean the typeclasses, right?

I should have formulated the question in a better way; my students probably won't take another shot at FP for a looong time after this course, so I don't want them to lose too much on the more "fun" parts of FP, because they might just never see them if I don't show them.

So I was wondering what limitations would Elm impose, apart from the typeclasses, compared to Purescript (Haskell).

aszenOP5y ago

Limitations like Tuples in elm are restricted to just two elements, because the author feels tuples greater than length of two should be better modelled as a named record.

Nested record updates are also not supported, so u have to write functions to update each record field.

Elm is by design a very opinionated language, which is good for beginners usually since there is only one chosen way to do things but not so for experienced devs.

The fun parts of FP are still present in elm, it's completely pure side effect free, great type checker with awesome error messages, fast performance and great for building interactive web apps with it's TEA architecture.

Eugeleo5y ago

I'm enjoying the discussion, thanks! Elm really does sound heavily opinionated, but that's often for the better, as you say. How's the tooling, besides the compiler+error messages? I've seen a web-based interactive editor, but I assume that's not _the_ way to write Elm.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse