I am not myself convinced that “there must only be one way” is always a useful philosophy. But I don’t get to decide about when it is followed in the Elm design. The reality may simply be that there is no way to get both let and where into Elm, that’s why I thought it “dangerous” to consider where as an isolated matter, as if adding it without removing let was even an option. (I can’t say whether it is an option.)
About this: Can I trust that the results will be respected, at least within the scope of this debate? I can only speak for myself. Of course, having proposed the experiment, I will not anymore claim that a majority of experienced Haskell programmers would prefer abandoning where over abandoning let if the data says otherwise. Whether that “admission” of mine would buy you anything in this debate is another matter. I don’t speak for anyone than myself here anyway. And it’s not like it is exactly my opinion that keeps you from getting where in Elm. :-) 2016-12-31 23:46 GMT+01:00 Colin Woodbury <coli...@gmail.com>: > > it is counterproductive to not up front discuss the actual alternatives > > While I think `let` is always an anti-pattern, I don't think it needs to > be removed if there is support for it. The "there must only be one way" > argument is moot so long so long as the points raised above are left > unaddressed. In general, I think that that philosophy remains an ideal > detached from the reality of programming (and the mathematics behind it). > > > And I don’t think that lambda + let was refuted. > > I will have to dig back into those refactoring examples and see what was > missed, if anything. > > > Make an experiment... > > Haha I suppose your 20 years beats my 5. That said, I'd never give up > `where`, but also never do local binds in lambdas. I like the idea of that > experiment, and will put it together tomorrow, posting the questions here > beforehand to make sure they're fair. A google poll posted across IRC, > Reddit, and Twitter ought to be representative. Can I trust that the > results will be respected, at least within the scope of this debate? It's > been made abundantly clear that Haskellers aren't the target audience for > Elm. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Elm Discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
