> The actual error is very basic and only useful if you already know what it pertains to
The error is really solid at showing a type mismatch. Which is of the form "I wanted X but you gave me Y".
> that the hint be way off is actively harmful
That's true and they could probably do a bit better for type mismatches on type variables vs concrete types
> just dumping the raw error
What's the difference between a "raw error" and something else. If the hint was accurate would it still be a "raw error" because it's not styled like those elm errors? Any more info (aside from a better hint which I concede should be better) would have to be an actual explanation of static typechecking which seems a bit extreme.
All I'm saying is while this error isn't a paragon of what all good error messages should be, it's no more cryptic than any other similar error. Even the nicely formatted elm errors say essentially the same thing.
The error is really solid at showing a type mismatch. Which is of the form "I wanted X but you gave me Y".
> that the hint be way off is actively harmful That's true and they could probably do a bit better for type mismatches on type variables vs concrete types
> just dumping the raw error What's the difference between a "raw error" and something else. If the hint was accurate would it still be a "raw error" because it's not styled like those elm errors? Any more info (aside from a better hint which I concede should be better) would have to be an actual explanation of static typechecking which seems a bit extreme.
All I'm saying is while this error isn't a paragon of what all good error messages should be, it's no more cryptic than any other similar error. Even the nicely formatted elm errors say essentially the same thing.