Thanks for the article i really liked it :D
I started using Elm 0.18. In the process i got used to functional coding. I really like the compiler errors but still hate the documentation of elm packages. I think the documentation is not updated(some packages updated but not their documentation) and not complete(eg. http v1.0.0 package).
Being a new language creates lack of examples and most examples are for older versions of Elm. And because Elm is still in like alpha development(0.18) features change dramatically. This causes the examples found on net are not 100% compatible with the version used.
All in all Elm is a good and fun language but using it for a live project is a hard decision to take. I believe ELm will grow and be a very nice language for frontend.
Yeah, the packages are really rough to deal with from what I noticed! I was trying to use a random number generator package and I couldn't get it to work!
I think the ideal would be a combination of JS style docs, where most of the documentation for a lot of libraries is in the README with a few examples, and the Haskell style, where types are often all you're given.
I found that as I got better at reading type signatures, I much much much preferred Elm's package repository and documentation to what can normally be found on NPM, but that was totally because I learned to read the type signatures (which took practice).
As much as I love having type signatures in the documentation, the presence of helpful types in Elm's package documentation can make it more difficult for package authors to remember to write out good examples. And examples are definitely needed in many cases to make sense of how the libraries are intended to be used. That's a way in which the community can improve.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.