4 ms·

I am surprized Elm gets talked about so much more than Purescript. Although Purescript is more of a general-purpose language and feels like Haskell that compile

by azangru 10y ago

I am surprized Elm gets talked about so much more than Purescript. Although Purescript is more of a general-purpose language and feels like Haskell that compiles to Javascript, and Elm is something that relies on its specific runtime to work.

zem 10y ago
same reason rails got so much more mindshare than any of the competing web frameworks of its day - there is considerable value in optimising for the common case, and indeed adding constraints in the name of safety and good architecture; most languages/frameworks try to optimise for flexibility and miss out on this fact.
- KurtMueller 10y ago
  I think this is one of the main selling points about Elm - it's got conventions and it's got opinions. There's only one way to structure your app and it's the Elm way. That's a good thing when you're 1) building & growing the app - there's only way to grow and it must follow the same conventions as every other Elm app 2) bringing on developers - their main hurdle is the business logic itself and not the structure of the app 3) finding resources in the community - most everybody is traveling down the same road and can teach one another the lessons they've learned
systems 10y ago
Well, I think with so many language trying to replace javascript (purescript, coffeescript, livescript, clojurescript, bucklescript, dart, typescript .. probably there is more) It is impossible that all of them will be popular, plus more general purpose, doesnt really seem to help with popularity ... look at sql or r ... very popular, and very domain specific
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crimsonalucard 10y ago
Purescript is more powerful but harder to use.
boubiyeah 10y ago
The barrier to entry is much higher for purescript. Elm tries to protect new users: "here, use andThen to chain two computations" Purescript: React bindings have literal mentions of monads and functors... I think they're useful as concepts; but I don't want to think about it everytime I write a component's render function.

by azangru 10y ago

zem 10y ago

same reason rails got so much more mindshare than any of the competing web frameworks of its day - there is considerable value in optimising for the common case, and indeed adding constraints in the name of safety and good architecture; most languages/frameworks try to optimise for flexibility and miss out on this fact.

KurtMueller 10y ago
I think this is one of the main selling points about Elm - it's got conventions and it's got opinions. There's only one way to structure your app and it's the Elm way. That's a good thing when you're 1) building & growing the app - there's only way to grow and it must follow the same conventions as every other Elm app 2) bringing on developers - their main hurdle is the business logic itself and not the structure of the app 3) finding resources in the community - most everybody is traveling down the same road and can teach one another the lessons they've learned

systems 10y ago

Well, I think with so many language trying to replace javascript (purescript, coffeescript, livescript, clojurescript, bucklescript, dart, typescript .. probably there is more) It is impossible that all of them will be popular, plus more general purpose, doesnt really seem to help with popularity ... look at sql or r ... very popular, and very domain specific

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

crimsonalucard 10y ago

Purescript is more powerful but harder to use.

boubiyeah 10y ago

The barrier to entry is much higher for purescript. Elm tries to protect new users: "here, use andThen to chain two computations" Purescript: React bindings have literal mentions of monads and functors... I think they're useful as concepts; but I don't want to think about it everytime I write a component's render function.