Redux follows the same pattern with your more "familiar" syntax.
Typed functional programming offers wins that forces more safety and modularity onto the code. These are all long term wins. Ultimately I would argue that elm's syntax is better suited for extremely complex projects that have low tolerance for bugs.
Right but the underlying design pattern is the same. This is all I'm saying. Redux can almost be thought of as an Elm pattern implementation with "familiar" imperative syntax.
Comments
Redux follows the same pattern with your more "familiar" syntax.
Typed functional programming offers wins that forces more safety and modularity onto the code. These are all long term wins. Ultimately I would argue that elm's syntax is better suited for extremely complex projects that have low tolerance for bugs.
Redux is a javascript library. It shares some idioms with correct Elm code, but is a very different beast.
Right but the underlying design pattern is the same. This is all I'm saying. Redux can almost be thought of as an Elm pattern implementation with "familiar" imperative syntax.