That's one of the points he raised, and I see the value now. However, the author also talks about the dangers that come from using lesser-known, using unstable languages (he mentions finding bugs in the compiler, segfaults, and so on), and he doesn't say how Elm solves them
back
2 comments
The author does emphasise how complete and well-built the official Elm tools are, which kind of mitigates this concern. But I agree, the article doesn’t really spell out its reasoning.
> does emphasise how complete and well-built the official Elm tools are
It's not a good point. It's just unrealistic to rely on standard libraries, even if you're writing Scala or Python. Community size must be an important factor, even for Elm. It is highly unlikely that Elm is so perfect, that community size simply becomes irrelevant.
I think we can all agree that this article isn't finished at all.
Good point. I suspect to some degree it's mitigated by the fact that anyone attempting to re-implement (most of) Haskell must care about correctness a great deal, and having Haskell already in place limits the number of conceptual bugs.
Anyway, this is pure speculation on my part, I have yet to dive into either language.