Hacker News Reader

Comment by leshow | Hacker News Reader

My mistake, I thought you were saying I could still have the syntax features I wanted in the language. I like the range syntax, and backticks, and calling functions'. I also liked signals and having access to more stuff that is now 'magic' in the Elm compiler.

View on HN

It sounds like you might like PureScript [1] or GHCJS [2] more than Elm. Have you tried either of those?

[1]: http://www.purescript.org/ [2]: https://github.com/ghcjs/ghcjs

No, those don't really appeal to me. I think Elm had a great middle ground for a while pre-0.16 with Signals. I'm just disappointed at what I see as a lack of positive change for the language. The more stuff that becomes compiler magic the worse the language is going to get IMO.

> The more stuff that becomes compiler magic the worse the language is going to get IMO.

Not sure what you mean here. Elm 0.18 has less compiler magic, not more.

One such magic is the "comparable" thing. See http://reasonablypolymorphic.com/blog/elm-is-wrong and https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/774

Yes, but that's not new in 0.18

Did you read my comment? I mentioned the removal of Signals and it's replacement with the 'magic' Html.app

Html.App used to be a namespace, I suspect you mean Program? In any case, how is that any more, or less, magic than Signals? Considering that the compiler has removed syntax in later versions, later versions of Elm has less magic than earlier versions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com