It's important to separate the two ideas: being able to share code between client and the server was awesome and very nice - but writing Elm to work around node's model was not nice/reliable.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Joel McCracken <mccracken.j...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It was very, very nice. It allows for seemless APIs that simplified >> the code sharing a whole bunch. > > > Oh? My impression was that you thought this wasn't worth it, based upon > comments here > https://github.com/noredink/take-home#should-i-use-this-in-production and > IIRC what I've read elsewhere. > > Incidentally, I also hate the term isomorphic for shared client-server code. > > -- > 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.
