I think people should stop presenting JavaScript == operator as some kind of black magic, it's not helping anyone. The standard is online and you can read it here [1]. It is complex and unintuitive, no doubt about that, and you should prefer === most of the time. However, rejecting any attempt at understanding it is counter productive.<p>[1]: <a href="https://262.ecma-international.org/11.0/#sec-abstract-equality-comparison" rel="nofollow">https://262.ecma-international.org/11.0/#sec-abstract-equali...</a>
If the author of Mint sites Elm as an inspiration, it might be worthwhile to explain the ways Mint differs from Elm? It seems like, if the things Mint offers are things a dev is interested in, they'd be better off using Elm, as I would hazard a guess Elm is better supported/maintained than something Elm-like?
It says in the article that everything is immutable, which I found intriguing, but then I see this in the example at mint-lang<p>fun increment {
next { counter = counter + 1 }
}<p>Something doesn't add up.
Curious if anyone here has tried mint? Looks to be a few years old and still at version 0.11.00. Looked at elm but still going down the web component rabbit hole on my next project. I guess I need to stop looking and just keep building
Hey, let's remediate the overwhelming amount of JS app frameworks with a new programming language.<p>That totally won't encourage an overwhelming amount of JS transpiled languages.
My mind automatically goes to the XKCD comic - <a href="https://xkcd.com/927/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/927/</a><p>I do agree that the number of tools and solutions out there for creating web applications is overwhelming at times. I just don't know if this a valid approach, especially when people keep churning out tech to replace old tech instead of improving on said old tech.