Poll on cmd accumulation approach

[kanishka]

I want to setup a poll to know how many people are using elm-return vs cmd-extra vs other ways of reducing the noise dealing with cmd’s. What options should I include in the poll?

[kanishka]

Which of the following libraries do you use to simplify accumulating cmd’s in your update functions:

• elm-return
• cmd-extra
• no additional libraries

[rupert]

I voted for elm-return but I don’t actually use it - I made my own update-helper package, but its almost the same thing as elm-return. In fact, I probably would use elm-return but I did not know about it at the time.

Hope that vote is ok for your survey, I am essentially voting in favour of the pattern of working with (model, Cmd msg) and map, andThen, andMap, ... over it.

[kanishka]

I should have done a more exhaustive search. There are about four more libraries that address this need. Looks like most people don’t use a library regardless.

[wolfadex]

I voted for the no libraries option because most of my code doesn’t use anything extra. When I do use something additional it most closely looks like cmd-extra but I’m also typically working with the effects pattern meaning that there’s typically more like Page.withRequest someRequest or Page.withSomeOtherEffect and something like withCmd isn’t as common.

This is all assuming you mean Janiczek/cmd-extra/latest and not GlobalWebIndex/cmd-extra. It’s hard to know exactly which package you’re talking about without a link or username prefix.

[gampleman]

I would second that, I think variations on the effect pattern is pretty common, and of course that means that you are doing commands somewhere, but generally then there is much less model complexity.