Despite your desire to isolate this aspect from other factors such as immutability, I don't think you can do that without missing the big picture. Elm's strength does not come from a list of features (types, immutability, controlled side effects, etc...), but rather from way that they have all been thoughtfully combined.
That said, what if we flip the question around? Given that we have facilities for encapsulation (unexposed types), what would we gain by adding a new set of concepts around mixing data/logic and syntactic sugar in the form of "this"? What would this enable? On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:55:54 AM UTC-4, Dave Ford wrote: > > There is a line from the docs that I am trying to understand: "Elm > encourages a strict separation of data and logic, and the ability to say > this is primarily used to break this separation. This is a systemic > problem in Object Oriented languages that Elm is purposely avoiding." > > What is the systemic problem being reference? Is it the [lack of] "separation > of data and logic" or "the ability to say this"? > > I have been programming in Java (an OO language) for a long time. I can > name dozens of systemic problems in the language. But the ability to say > "this" is not one of them. Nor is it the commingling of data and logic. > > Please help me to understand what the author is talking about. > > Thanks. > > Side note: "this" *is* a problem in JavaScript. But not in OO generally. > -- 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.
