4 ms·

> If anyone has advice on how someone who prefers rigour, simplicity, elegance, and decent PL design over the latest trend should approach web dev that would be

by pka 9y ago

> If anyone has advice on how someone who prefers rigour, simplicity, elegance, and decent PL design over the latest trend should approach web dev that would be massively helpful Sounds like Elm [0] (pure, functional, very very easy to start with but lacks abstractions), Purescript [1] (pure, functional, powerful, the best language for the web right now, imo) or ReasonML [2] (functional but impure, familiar syntax, focused on pragmatism) would be right up your alley. If you're ok with a dynamic language (i.e. strike rigour), then look no further than Clojurescript [3], Clojure's [4] little web brother. An elegant and simple Lisp, it makes almost all other dynamic languages completely obsolete. There most definitely are sane options for developing for the web if one is willing to use a compile-to-js language. [0] http://elm-lang.org http://elm-lang.org [1] http://www.purescript.org http://www.purescript.org [2] https://reasonml.github.io https://reasonml.github.io [3] https://clojurescript.org https://clojurescript.org [4] https://clojure.org https://clojure.org

aaron-lebo 9y ago
That's incredibly high praise for Clojurescript. It's got some great features but it has flaws, too. I feel like many people new to web dev would be more confused setting up a Clojurescript project than they would be with JS. It was a lot of googling when I did it a couple weeks ago, and that's coming from someone who has done several times over the years (what's this boot thing, I was told lein was the best thing ever?). Those are all great languages. It is important to realize that they will increase bundle sizes, which is a common rant about web pages these days. Hello world in Bucklescript/Reason, for example, is 23 KB (anything touching the std lib at least), Elm much bigger than that. My friend's 500 line Clojurescript/Reagant app was over 500 KB uncompressed, 5k lines of JS will come in at 140 KB. It's worth being aware of the tradeoffs you are making, because often when people are selling new tech they tend to overstate advantages and understate disadvantages.
- pka 9y ago
  > It is important to realize that they will increase bundle sizes Absolutely, and it wouldn't make sense to program a tiny static webpage in e.g. Purescript. That said, to put that into perspective, pulling 350 npm modules for a bigger project is kind of the norm now. Using compile-to-js languages will incur more overhead still and it depends on the project whether that's acceptable or not, but many times it most definitely is (also, I hope webassembly will help with bundle sizes in the future.) I'm not really up-to-date re Clojurescript's package manager, but I know people who've specifically stated that one of the reasons for using Clojurescript is that package management and bundling is just so much easier than the standard JS npm/yarn/bower/gulp/webpack/etc amalgamation.
bitL 9y ago
And for non-functional languages? Not everybody wants to spend next 5 years learning thinking bottom-up, mastering category theory, monads and all that for such a task like writing a silly webpage you wouldn't rather be doing. [rant] Frankly, I am not sure why is functional paradigm considered a savior and better approach for inherently non-concurrent web frontend technology. I program in Haskell/Scala but pushing functional programming everywhere is IMO just insanity and everybody is silent about many warts and weirdness of purely functional programming. [/rant]
- dbrgn 9y ago
  Elm is the opposite. From this article: https://medium.com/@eeue56/why-type-classes-arent-important-in-elm-yet-dd55be125c81 https://medium.com/@eeue56/why-type-classes-arent-important-... "Right now, any Elm developer can examine Elm code that another developer has written, and fully understand what is going on. I consider this a major thing that Elm has got right." And "Elm is targeted at the main source of users it has — Javascript developers. Javascript developers may be familiar with typeclasses, but it is less likely that they are than Haskell developers. Alternatives like Purescript provide more abstractions and powerful type systems suited to those from the Haskell community. There are many of us Haskell users who sit happily with Elm too." Elm favors simplicity and pragmatism over academic FP lingo. You need to change your way of thinking a bit, true, but it benefits the architecture. And it'll take weeks, not years! You will not find the words "monad" or "category theory" or "algebraic datatype" used in the Elm docs.
  - bitL 9y ago
    Thanks! Do you know any good (Udemy?) course in Elm that won't take too much time and gets into important parts quickly and thoroughly?
    - machiaweliczny 9y ago
      I don't get why you need udemy course. Just read official tutorial with open sandbox/project.
    - 9y ago

by pka 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago

That's incredibly high praise for Clojurescript. It's got some great features but it has flaws, too. I feel like many people new to web dev would be more confused setting up a Clojurescript project than they would be with JS. It was a lot of googling when I did it a couple weeks ago, and that's coming from someone who has done several times over the years (what's this boot thing, I was told lein was the best thing ever?). Those are all great languages. It is important to realize that they will increase bundle sizes, which is a common rant about web pages these days. Hello world in Bucklescript/Reason, for example, is 23 KB (anything touching the std lib at least), Elm much bigger than that. My friend's 500 line Clojurescript/Reagant app was over 500 KB uncompressed, 5k lines of JS will come in at 140 KB. It's worth being aware of the tradeoffs you are making, because often when people are selling new tech they tend to overstate advantages and understate disadvantages.

pka 9y ago
> It is important to realize that they will increase bundle sizes Absolutely, and it wouldn't make sense to program a tiny static webpage in e.g. Purescript. That said, to put that into perspective, pulling 350 npm modules for a bigger project is kind of the norm now. Using compile-to-js languages will incur more overhead still and it depends on the project whether that's acceptable or not, but many times it most definitely is (also, I hope webassembly will help with bundle sizes in the future.) I'm not really up-to-date re Clojurescript's package manager, but I know people who've specifically stated that one of the reasons for using Clojurescript is that package management and bundling is just so much easier than the standard JS npm/yarn/bower/gulp/webpack/etc amalgamation.

bitL 9y ago

And for non-functional languages? Not everybody wants to spend next 5 years learning thinking bottom-up, mastering category theory, monads and all that for such a task like writing a silly webpage you wouldn't rather be doing. [rant] Frankly, I am not sure why is functional paradigm considered a savior and better approach for inherently non-concurrent web frontend technology. I program in Haskell/Scala but pushing functional programming everywhere is IMO just insanity and everybody is silent about many warts and weirdness of purely functional programming. [/rant]

dbrgn 9y ago
Elm is the opposite. From this article: https://medium.com/@eeue56/why-type-classes-arent-important-in-elm-yet-dd55be125c81 https://medium.com/@eeue56/why-type-classes-arent-important-... "Right now, any Elm developer can examine Elm code that another developer has written, and fully understand what is going on. I consider this a major thing that Elm has got right." And "Elm is targeted at the main source of users it has — Javascript developers. Javascript developers may be familiar with typeclasses, but it is less likely that they are than Haskell developers. Alternatives like Purescript provide more abstractions and powerful type systems suited to those from the Haskell community. There are many of us Haskell users who sit happily with Elm too." Elm favors simplicity and pragmatism over academic FP lingo. You need to change your way of thinking a bit, true, but it benefits the architecture. And it'll take weeks, not years! You will not find the words "monad" or "category theory" or "algebraic datatype" used in the Elm docs.
- bitL 9y ago
  Thanks! Do you know any good (Udemy?) course in Elm that won't take too much time and gets into important parts quickly and thoroughly?
  - machiaweliczny 9y ago
    I don't get why you need udemy course. Just read official tutorial with open sandbox/project.
  - 9y ago