4 ms·

One of the major goals of Elm is being easy to learn, both from a language and a library point of view. PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Hask

One of the major goals of Elm is being easy to learn, both from a language and a library point of view. PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Haskell as a language, with all of the power of Haskell but its complexity as well. Elm is going to be much more approachable, and has a major focus on readable documentation and simple, straightforward concepts. It takes trade offs in language features in exchange, but is probably a better bet for someone who wants to get up and running quickly.

codygman 11y ago
> PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Haskell as a language, with all of the power of Haskell but its complexity as well Is it really no simpler? A few common complexity complaints i hear about Haskell that don't apply to purescript in order of frequency: - Haskell is lazy by default - has too many language extensions - records pollute global namespace - has fmap and map - $ is confusing
- Kutta 11y ago
  Except that Purescript uses the liberty from Haskell legacy libraries to become even more hardcore on algebra and categoric language. The relatively small user base also consist of experienced Haskellers, and the libraries tend to be quite advanced. For example, the "basic component" in the beginning of the Halogen tutorial already mentions natural transformations (which made me instantly intrigued, personally, but I'm one of those experienced Haskellers).
  - purescript 11y ago
    > to become even more hardcore on algebra and categoric language In some of the standard libraries, yes, that's true. However, it's possible to use PureScript without the standard libraries, and use alternatives such as Preface (a teaching library) or Neon (an alternative to Prelude) https://github.com/paf31/purescript-preface https://github.com/paf31/purescript-preface http://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-neon/0.1.1 http://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-neon/0.1.1
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- thinkpad20 11y ago
  - Lazy/strict does not make affect language simplicity. I'm talking about how much time it takes to learn how to write programs in the language. - I'm not sure what you mean by too many language extensions. That's kind of like saying a language has too many libraries -- just use the ones you need. It doesn't make the language more complicated. - The records problem is a problem, but that doesn't make Haskell more complicated. - I never deal with the fmap/map problem because I use ClassyPrelude, and there are other even more trivial solutions out there (to the extent that that's a problem). Also, <$> is a thing. - Doesn't purescript also have the $ operator? You could certainly define it if not. In any case, if you're not comfortable using $ and similar combinators, you're probably not going to find purescript easy...

codygman 11y ago

> PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Haskell as a language, with all of the power of Haskell but its complexity as well Is it really no simpler? A few common complexity complaints i hear about Haskell that don't apply to purescript in order of frequency: - Haskell is lazy by default - has too many language extensions - records pollute global namespace - has fmap and map - $ is confusing

Kutta 11y ago
Except that Purescript uses the liberty from Haskell legacy libraries to become even more hardcore on algebra and categoric language. The relatively small user base also consist of experienced Haskellers, and the libraries tend to be quite advanced. For example, the "basic component" in the beginning of the Halogen tutorial already mentions natural transformations (which made me instantly intrigued, personally, but I'm one of those experienced Haskellers).
- purescript 11y ago
  > to become even more hardcore on algebra and categoric language In some of the standard libraries, yes, that's true. However, it's possible to use PureScript without the standard libraries, and use alternatives such as Preface (a teaching library) or Neon (an alternative to Prelude) https://github.com/paf31/purescript-preface https://github.com/paf31/purescript-preface http://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-neon/0.1.1 http://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-neon/0.1.1
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
thinkpad20 11y ago
- Lazy/strict does not make affect language simplicity. I'm talking about how much time it takes to learn how to write programs in the language. - I'm not sure what you mean by too many language extensions. That's kind of like saying a language has too many libraries -- just use the ones you need. It doesn't make the language more complicated. - The records problem is a problem, but that doesn't make Haskell more complicated. - I never deal with the fmap/map problem because I use ClassyPrelude, and there are other even more trivial solutions out there (to the extent that that's a problem). Also, <$> is a thing. - Doesn't purescript also have the $ operator? You could certainly define it if not. In any case, if you're not comfortable using $ and similar combinators, you're probably not going to find purescript easy...