xmonad VS Elm

The official guide and the archwiki do say that it's okay to just install it via pacman, but I've also found some issues on the official repo that strongly suggest against installing via pacman and to use stack instead, as sometimes pacman breaks dependencies.

Especially Haskell tools often live in proximity to nix as well, e.g., pandoc or xmonad.

Hey everyone 👋 ! I'm currently working on a rust library for building and configuring your own shell! It's inspired by projects like xmonad and penrose where the configuration of the program is done in code. This means that for example, instead of using Bash's arcane syntax for configuring the prompt, it can be configured instead using a rust builder pattern! The project itself is still at a very young stage, so there are plenty of bugs and unimplemented features. However, some things that are (partially) implemented are:

Daily, because xmonad

If the problem is as described in the reply linked below, then this isn't a fundamental issue, but just a matter of how sendMessage is written. In fact, the fix already exists in xmonad/432:2fff2a0.

There are a few other things I could mention, but there are more like side issues, and not relevant to my actual LaTeX setup. First and foremost—and thus perhaps noteworthy after all—is bibliography management with arxiv-citation (see here for more words). This is integrated very well with the XMonad window manager, which makes it even more of a joy to use.

The tl;dr is that this is a bug in steam, see https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad/issues/423

And here is my Xmonad configuration

Elm [1] is based on a similar idea. Build your app from pure functions that return HTML tags.

[1] https://elm-lang.org/

You also wouldn't really be creating your own new programing language. You would be creating something that can run JavaScript by following JavaScript standards and syntax. You might be able to add some non-standard features of your own on top of those standards, or include your own standard library of helpers or utilities, but you can't completely make a new or alternative language and then load it in the browser (or at least not by reimplementing ECMAScript standards... you actually can make your own language that runs within any Javascript enviroment, if you provide an interpreter or compiler that transforms it into valid JS. Some people have done something like this, eg Elm: https://elm-lang.org/).

You should at least have a look at https://elm-lang.org/ it is a pure functional language like Haskell (although with fewer fancy syntax/type classes) but it has some lovely libraries for visualisation and even with plain elm (+ elm-ui) doing string transformations can be easily done.

I get it. However, the whole point of using Unions to narrow your types, ensure only a set of possible scenarios can occur, and only access data of a particular union when it’s safe to do so. That’s some of what pattern matching can provide, and 100% of what using switch statements in TypeScript with their Discriminated Unions can provide. Yes, it’s not 100% exhaustive, but TypeScript is not soundly typed, and even Elm which is still has the same issue TypeScript does: You’re running in JavaScript where anything is possible. So it’s good enough to build with and much better than what you had.

The beauty of a language like Elm (and other lambda-calculus / functional programming inspired languages) is that there's very little transformation involved in going from an idea to code. And that seems to have a big impact on getting things done.

I think the most fun and approachable way for beginners to build games with functional programming is with Elm [1].

See a few (small, demo) games built by the community in [2] .

Notice Elm has abandoned the FRP approach in favor of Model-View-Update [3].

[1] https://elm-lang.org/