Community BETA for Elm 0.19.1


The BETA is not producing many reports of unexpected or buggy behavior. That’s encouraging!

It looks like the next steps are:

  1. Finish up the blog post announcing the release. I am working on that, and it is actually helping improve the error messages quite a bit. (E.g. making color usage more consistent, making errors more helpful, etc.)
  2. Get elm-test working with the new binary format of various build artifacts. There is work going on by various authors and maintainers to get that working.

Once those are both in order, it looks like it’ll make sense to do a BETA-2 or RC-1 just to be safe. There are a couple fixes and changes, so it’d be good to get some eyes on them!

Thanks to everyone who has tried out the BETA so far! Really excited about how it is coming together to make a more solid foundation! :smile:


That’s great to hear. If you’d make a tag in github, I can prepare a Nix package for everyone to be able to easily test RC-1 easily on macos/linux.


It would be nice to have ARM binaries as well.

Wait what? How would you use ARM build? You’ve set up some CI on Raspberry Pi? Are you in the beginning of this process or is it something you rely on?

I would use it on an Android Tablet to do Elm development. I tried to compile it myself, but the tablet had only 2GB of memory so that failed. Probably should have launched a bigger ARM instance in the AWS cloud to compile it, but having a ready made binary would help.

1 Like

Here’s a guide on doing it yourself. I suppose you can take the 0.19 source and take some advice from this guide? Let me know if it works out! :sunny:

@berend The Nix packages provide (prebuilt) ARM versions of Elm (I successfully use them for developing on my Android tablet). I would imagine that if the RC makes it into Nix then they will also eventually provide prebuilt packages of that there too (or if not for the RC, certainly for 0.19.1)…

1 Like

Sorry for the delay, I’ve been away. I’ve posted the issue at as requested. Thanks again!

Just changed elm to this 0.19.1 beta for my private project and I see this:

Dependencies ready!
-- INCOMPATIBLE DEPENDENCIES ------------------------------------------ elm.json

The dependencies in your elm.json are not compatible.

Did you change them by hand? Try to change it back! It is much more reliable to
add dependencies with elm install or the dependency management tool in
elm reactor.

Please ask for help on the community forums if you try those paths and are still
having problems!


  1. I don’t like that I don’t know the specifics of incompability.
  2. “Dependencies ready” vs the fact that elm-stuff\0.19.1-beta-1 folder contains only the lock file (meaning, it’s almost empty).

My elm.json is:

    "type": "application",
    "source-directories": [
    "elm-version": "0.19.1",
    "dependencies": {
        "direct": {
            "GlobalWebIndex/cmd-extra": "1.1.1",
            "NoRedInk/elm-json-decode-pipeline": "1.0.0",
            "dillonkearns/elm-graphql": "4.2.1",
            "elm/browser": "1.0.1",
            "elm/core": "1.0.2",
            "elm/file": "1.0.5",
            "elm/html": "1.0.0",
            "elm/http": "2.0.0",
            "elm/json": "1.1.3",
            "elm/regex": "1.0.0",
            "elm/time": "1.0.0",
            "elm/url": "1.0.0",
            "elm-community/array-extra": "2.1.0",
            "elm-community/list-extra": "8.2.0",
            "elm-community/maybe-extra": "5.0.0",
            "justinmimbs/date": "3.1.2",
            "jweir/elm-iso8601": "6.0.0",
            "krisajenkins/remotedata": "6.0.1",
            "mdgriffith/elm-ui": "1.1.0",
            "myrho/elm-round": "1.0.4",
            "periodic/elm-csv": "2.0.0",
            "truqu/elm-md5": "1.1.0"
        "indirect": {
            "Skinney/murmur3": "2.0.8",
            "elm/bytes": "1.0.8",
            "elm/parser": "1.1.0",
            "elm/virtual-dom": "1.0.2",
            "lukewestby/elm-string-interpolate": "1.0.3",
            "zwilias/elm-utf-tools": "2.0.1"
    "test-dependencies": {
        "direct": {
            "elm-explorations/test": "1.1.0"
        "indirect": {
            "elm/random": "1.0.0"

Here’s a data point from our team (I shared our comparison between Elm 0.18 and 0.19 on Twitter a while back):

Our project is now a little bit larger (28k LoC). Here’s what I see in terms of compilation times between 0.19 and 0.19.1-beta:

Compiler Time
elm-0.19 2.196 seconds
elm-0.19.1-beta 1.165 seconds

Incremental recompilation is almost instantaneous (usually under 0.2 seconds).

Thanks for taking the time to make these types of improvements, @evancz (and the rest of the Elm core team)!


I think you’re having this problem which looks like it pertains to 0.19

This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.