Yeah, I really feel this a good way to divide developers into two types. There are those like me, to whom the philosophy of discourage foot guns systematically sounds kind of brilliant. To put it in flattering terms, it's pay a short term cost for the long term and hard-to-perceive but very real benefits (making certain categories of errors completely extinct). To put the other side in flattering terms: they're not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and never compromising on their vision because the tech is holding them back. I think the latter is definitely dominant in the discipline. I'm glad that at least Elm carries the torch for the former though.
The Elm people themselves worked with the impure browser api all the time. They just don't want me to do it. So it's not even a foolish consistency but just base gatekeeping. Turns me right off.
If you want to divide into two camps how 0.19 was received I'd say it's people who were maintaining a substantial Elm project on the one side and people who weren't on the other. Maybe if you're carrying a torch don't drop it on the ecosystem.
