ohanhi

I was part of the team that built an editorial admin panel for the most read news site in my country. The initial development phase ended around three years ago and it's been in a sort of continuous development mode since then. A whole bunch of people have added features to the codebase (and upgraded it from 0.16 to 0.17 and 0.18) after me and the other original devs left.

It is still going strong and is so reliable that there's no need for dedicated developer for that project. I honestly can't imagine any sort of JavaScript project could have survived through the years that well.

Good feedback, thank you!

I will rethink some of the phrasing, especially on the reactive/imperative references. To be honest, the reactive part in the example is rather slim (arguably only the `Signal.foldp` is "reactive"), and it is so by design. I wanted to describe the appeal of writing pure functions first off, and then subtly bind the existing code to the signals at play. Obviously this is an opinionated decision.

Regarding the update function, I refrained from using the infix operator just to make the article a bit more approachable. Was I to write the code just for myself, it would have been:

    ship
      |> applyPhysics dt
      |> updateShooting isShooting
      |> updateVelocity newVel

This is also the reasoning for the argument order.

Thank you! "Accessible" is precisely what I wanted the post feel like.

Sly seems very cool too, I hope it will help popularizing these ideas!

That's great to hear! I also had some trouble finding the gist of currying. As you said, the _why_ is often missing in the explanations. Glad I could help you in that regard.