Richard Feldman is an amazing educator. He got me into Elm back in the days.
I am a bit sad that Roc is following similar pitfalls as Elm in its quest to be simple by rejecting to have more advanced type system features. That just does not work. In dynamic languages you can opt for minimalism because everything goes by default but in fully statically typed languages things can painful quickly. Even golang had to add generics.
Still many amazing ideas in the language. The platform concept is pretty neat. Not doing implicit currying is a good move.
What particular type system featured do you miss? I think Elm proved that a restricted type system DOES WORK for large amounts of software. It's been a few years since I've written Elm, so I don't recall specific painful memories I've had with the type system.
One thing that makes Go's restrictive type system more bearable is a fantastic stlib package for analyzing and generating Go code. I wonder if Roc will get anything similar.
I am a bit sad that Roc is following similar pitfalls as Elm in its quest to be simple by rejecting to have more advanced type system features. That just does not work. In dynamic languages you can opt for minimalism because everything goes by default but in fully statically typed languages things can painful quickly. Even golang had to add generics.
Still many amazing ideas in the language. The platform concept is pretty neat. Not doing implicit currying is a good move.