3 ms·

I'm guessing pragmatism and practicality is why they went with Elm over PureScript? If their backend is in Haskell then it seems like they have devs who know it

• bbcbasic 10y ago
  From my limited experience, I would say PureScript sounds more practical. You can choose your own UI engine, and has additional language features that are useful like typeclasses. It also compiles without needing a runtime baked in to the output. When you hit a wall you can probably work around it in Purescript whereas I feel you are too sandboxed in with Elm and you'd have to start patching your Elm source to get around it.
• gilmi 10y ago
  It's more likely that they tried Elm first and liked it so they thought they might be able to use Haskell as well. I actually find PureScript quite practical by design and goals (for example the ffi and readable generated code).