[elm-discuss] Literature reviews repo

[Oliver Searle-Barnes]

In https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elm-discuss/yHiAJ_wcG3c Max
proposes that we put together some literature reviews. If we're to
collaborate on this effort we'll need to consolidate our investigations
somewhere. Having seen the success of the RFCS repos for Ember
<https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs> and Rust
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs> I wonder if we could use a similar
model. RFCs for those languages are in the business of proposing a concrete
API (along with supporting evidence) but the structure of a literature
review could be a template based around the questions Max posed.

I believe this would give us an open process that the community can
contribute to collectively. It would allow newcomers to the language to get
an overview of what the community is thinking about (saving on the
countless reruns of feature discussions we have in here) while providing a
structure and focus that will provide Evan with the information that he
needs.

[Noah Hall]

I suggest making this repo part of the elm-community org, if it is to be made.

Post by Oliver Searle-Barnes
In https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elm-discuss/yHiAJ_wcG3c Max
proposes that we put together some literature reviews. If we're to
collaborate on this effort we'll need to consolidate our investigations
somewhere. Having seen the success of the RFCS repos for Ember and Rust I
wonder if we could use a similar model. RFCs for those languages are in the
business of proposing a concrete API (along with supporting evidence) but
the structure of a literature review could be a template based around the
questions Max posed.
I believe this would give us an open process that the community can
contribute to collectively. It would allow newcomers to the language to get
an overview of what the community is thinking about (saving on the countless
reruns of feature discussions we have in here) while providing a structure
and focus that will provide Evan with the information that he needs.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Elm Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Wojciech Piekutowski]

Great idea! What can be done to ensure that these efforts wouldn't go in
vain?

Post by Oliver Searle-Barnes
In https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elm-discuss/yHiAJ_wcG3c Max
proposes that we put together some literature reviews. If we're to
collaborate on this effort we'll need to consolidate our investigations
somewhere. Having seen the success of the RFCS repos for Ember
<https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs> and Rust
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs> I wonder if we could use a similar
model. RFCs for those languages are in the business of proposing a concrete
API (along with supporting evidence) but the structure of a literature
review could be a template based around the questions Max posed.
I believe this would give us an open process that the community can
contribute to collectively. It would allow newcomers to the language to get
an overview of what the community is thinking about (saving on the
countless reruns of feature discussions we have in here) while providing a
structure and focus that will provide Evan with the information that he
needs.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Elm Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Max Goldstein]

Here, I've set up a repo:

https://github.com/elm-community/literature-reviews

[Oliver Searle-Barnes]

That's great!

People have been pretty responsive with calls for examples of code from
existing projects, would it be worth adding a section to the template?

Post by Max Goldstein
https://github.com/elm-community/literature-reviews

[Max Goldstein]

Why don't you open a PR and see what people think? :)

I'm also in favor of having a folder of sample apps to demonstrate the current best practice, and anything else that would be useful.

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

Post by Max Goldstein
https://github.com/elm-community/literature-reviews

Excellent. Now it is clear that doing the hard work is the way forward.