I can comment a bit on purescript and fable (and ghcjs) from a n00b perspective in all three.
- Purescript's type system is not as well polished as haskell and has IMO a steeper learning curve. - Purescript's package ecosystem is very immature. - Purescript's js interop is very easy and doesn't fight at all. - GHCJS speed was surprisingly fast and it has concurrency features builtin (such as calling haskell from javascript with and without a wait for a result, chans etc). - GHCJS has the full haskell package set, but pins some emulated packages at specific versions, so some caveats apply. - GHCJS interop allows you at the core to just define javascript to run inline, but seems to be in flux in recent versions. I was able to use the basic interop features but couldn't find current docs on advanced ones. - Fable's type system has everything from .net, including classes and interfaces that work as you expect. It's basically the same type system as kotlin plus proper sum types and convenient product types. The fable language output isn't as perfectly stable and mature as others however and the type system has a hole: some functions are invisibly curried (temporaries, non-exported functions in a module), and some invisibly javascript-style (exported ones in a module, interface methods). - Fable's package ecosystem is basically nonexistent, and pure F# generally won't work if it relies on unemulated stuff from System.* but js interop is easy. - Fable's interop is mature and pretty good. It lets you just formulate javascript to have in the literal generated code, replacing a specific function call. On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:51:50 AM UTC-8, GordonBGood wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 29 December 2016 09:47:13 UTC+7, Martin DeMello wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:25 PM, GordonBGood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Related to speed, it seems to me that the working Fable (F#) code linked >>> from your link above is more responsive than the working Elm code from >>> another link on that page, both for the same sample application; am I >>> imagining things or do you see that too? >>> >> >> yes, but it seems to be due to a slower load time from the backend rather >> than any perceptible frontend differences. >> >> martin >> > > Do you know anything about PureScript as compared to Fable and Elm > (according to the article it sits somewhere between as far as safety goes)? > It seems that it has an extensive Haskell-like syntax and philosophy, but > that may be overly complex for the types of people who would rather choose > Elm. > >> >> > -- 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 email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
