3 ms·
I think PureScript should catch on. The runtime performance story is much more predictable than Haskell, it integrates trivially with the most valuable target p
by chrisdone 10y ago
I think PureScript should catch on. The runtime performance story is much more predictable than Haskell, it integrates trivially with the most valuable target platform: JS, it has small output, fixes the warts of Haskell and yet is still pure.
Aside from apps at work, I made some simple physics demos with it http://chrisdone.com/toys/ http://chrisdone.com/toys/ Perfomance seems good.
- purescript 10y ago> Aside from apps at work Now I'm curious :)
- daxfohl 10y agoWhile I really like it, I think it needs a more familiar syntax (to mainstream devs) to be anything more than a niche thing. I'd like to see something in the middle kind of go the typescript route, where valid+pure JS is valid WhateverScript, and with generally JS-y syntax, but with PureScript's additional features and effects systems. It may end up really ugly though: how would you define operators while preserving JS semantics (e.g. no currying)?
- KurtMueller 10y agoYou use purescript at work? Are they internal-facing apps or external-facing? Would love some more details.