Comment by Lazare

Elm is a very locked down ecosystem, heavily influenced by a single lead developer (Evan Czaplicki) with a very small team of assistants. Development is slow, and focused heavily on what Evan thinks is best; features he doesn't use or doesn't think are working out can (and have) been removed. If he doesn't think a bug is critical, it will be ignored. If Evan decides that the way a chunk of the Elm ecosystem works isn't really in line with his vision, then he'll rewrite it. If that's a breaking change, so be it. If maybe Elm goes a release or two with an important feature not working because Evan is halfway through rethinking something, then sure, that's a thing that happens. The Elm dev team is small, their resources are limited, and they're focused on moving the project forward.

Some people see this and go "okay, I'm fine with this, I like Evan's vision and I want to see where this is going"; many of them use Elm in production and accept the occasional bumps in the road.

Others are interested, and happy to watch from afar, but are waiting for Elm to hit some form of 1.0 release or otherwise announce that it's ready to be used in production before making the jump. (I'm in this camp; Elm is clearly not suitable for me today, and that's fine!)

And some take the entire thing as a personal affront. Entitlement is an issue across all of open source, but Elm has some characteristics that makes it especially prone to driving a certain type of user wild. How dare Evan change Elm internals in a way that breaks the way they were using Elm?