11 ms·

You can, but it's... a bit messy unless you're using Nix as the build platform. Hopefully there will be a WASM backend for GHC... I mean, it's bound to happen r

You can, but it's... a bit messy unless you're using Nix as the build platform. Hopefully there will be a WASM backend for GHC... I mean, it's bound to happen right? :) If you want statically checked types, I'd probably say that Scala is better at the server+client game (i.e. when you want to have both). Of course, Scala has its own drawbacks wrt. Haskell: lack of typed effects is a big one for me. (Just for context: I work on a website+SPA written entirely in Scala which has been around for years and years. I also have quite a lot of experience in Haskell.)

sideeffffect 6y ago
> Scala has its own drawbacks wrt. Haskell: lack of typed effects is a big one for me. There are libraries like ZIO, Cats Effect or Monix. Give them a try! Some people might even say that for example ZIO is even better than Haskell's IO.
- Quekid5 6y ago
  Oh, I know about them. In fact, I'm trying to introduce ZIO in my Scala-mostly company. The problem is that a stray UUID.randomUUID() can destroy any and all guarantees. (We're already using Monix.) That truly is the singular reason that I still prefer Haskell over Scala. I can get over syntax awkwardness, etc. etc. The impure-in-pure is... difficult when you can't just grep for unsafe*, etc. EDIT: Fwiw, ZIO is definitely better than Haskell's IO. Better than RIO? Perhaps. Is it better than polysemy, tho? I don't think so. Btw, I know about polysemy's issues as well... hopefully lexi-lambda can get her GHC runtime changes merged so that we can have a true "free" effect system backed by a tailored runtime. Interestingly, Project Loom is also heading in a similar direction (first class continuations) on the JVM. Interesting times!