[always_good]

Your whole reason for replying to the submission seems to be "heh, ClojureScript already had this, but better ;)" but I'll chime in to say that the differences between Clojure and Elm, having used both extensively, especially become apparent when it comes time to refactor.

I would say that Elm lets me refactor front-end code fearlessly. I can confidently rewrite abstractions that are so fundamental that I'd be stuck with them forever in a dynamically-typed language because the rewrite would be so much more costly.

It reminds me of when people say that Mongo is better than Postgres for prototyping because it doesn't have a schema. In my experience, the very concept of having explicit schema transformation as the schema changes is why I'd consider Postgres to be better for prototyping: it's precisely the time when your schema is changing the most.

Of course, if we could unanimously agree on these trade-offs, then we would all be using the same stack and there would be no dynamic vs static typing debates.

[hellofunk]

I agree there are valid tradeoffs. In my experience, because Clojure code is so concise and tiny by comparison to Elm or most other language's, refactoring is usually replaced by actual re-writing, since the small amount of code is just as easy to architect again, maybe just saving particular functions, rewriting others.