<story><title>Elm from a Business Perspective</title><url>http://www.gizra.com/content/elm-business-perspective/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dkarapetyan</author><text>The academics always miss this part. They assume the most elegant and concise form of expression for an idea or a concept is equivalent to pragmatism. When in reality pragmatism in software engineering is mostly about making things obvious enough at a cheap enough price point. This is why golang is so popular even though all the academics on r&amp;#x2F;programming hate it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>chrisdone</author><text>There are many points to respond to here.&lt;p&gt;1. Evan (the Elm author) has pledged to support type-classes, it&amp;#x27;s on the issue tracker, and because he believes that they are useful.&lt;p&gt;2. &amp;quot;The academics&amp;quot; is a mischaracterization. I use Haskell and PureScript professionally and share the same problem of the &amp;quot;Elm is Wrong&amp;quot; author, which is that it&amp;#x27;s impossible to do any generic programming.&lt;p&gt;3. Generic programming is important for something as simple as inserting my own data types as keys into a dictionary. So is being able to write &amp;quot;show x&amp;quot; and just have the thing showed if it has the instance of a showable class. Or to parse a nested data structure of various types from JSON.&lt;p&gt;4. Being able to use my own types as keys in a dictionary is pretty pragmatic, I think. A typical pattern in ML-style languages is to wrap types like Int in a UserId type that just wraps it and protects it from being mistakenly used with other Ints. Now try to make a dictionary of users via the UserId type. Nope.&lt;p&gt;5. &amp;quot;They&amp;quot; in this case aren&amp;#x27;t concerned with elegance or concision for the sake of it, but because the features under discussion help them do their job better, avoid mistakes, reduce maintenance cost, and that&amp;#x27;s good for business.&lt;p&gt;6. Go has non-academic, purely pragmatic problems that are orthogonal to its popularity, as does PHP or nodejs.&lt;p&gt;None of the things under discussion are difficult to implement, novel or exotic. Given that other languages like PureScript exist under the same domain and from the same family of languages, we have the luxury of holding other languages up to the same standard. In this particular point, Elm is a -1.</text></comment>
<story><title>Elm from a Business Perspective</title><url>http://www.gizra.com/content/elm-business-perspective/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dkarapetyan</author><text>The academics always miss this part. They assume the most elegant and concise form of expression for an idea or a concept is equivalent to pragmatism. When in reality pragmatism in software engineering is mostly about making things obvious enough at a cheap enough price point. This is why golang is so popular even though all the academics on r&amp;#x2F;programming hate it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sotojuan</author><text>This is interesting because Elm has been removing features that Evan considers &amp;quot;too hard&amp;quot; and confusing for the average developer. I&amp;#x27;d argue it&amp;#x27;s not &amp;quot;academic&amp;quot; any more (though it might be interesting for an academic who wants to do UI).</text></comment>