3 ms·
Agreed. I really respect what the developers of PureScript have accomplished, as a younger project they’ve had the benefit of hindsight of how stuff has worked
by aranchelk 5y ago
Agreed. I really respect what the developers of PureScript have accomplished, as a younger project they’ve had the benefit of hindsight of how stuff has worked in GHC/Haskell and also have not been afraid to make breaking changes when they’ve needed to.
- throwaway81523 5y agoPurescript looks great but there is so much Javascript dependency that I'm afraid to go near it. Haskell has accumulated a ton of cruft over the years that can't really be shed. The alternative if you want a long-lasting language that doesn't cruft up so much, is to stay conceptually a lot simpler, which means being unable to use advanced new ideas. Ada and Scheme have maybe managed to do that, but for that reason they are less interesting than Haskell. Alternatively, adapt the good ideas from Haskell into a successor, maybe some combination of Purescript, Idris, or whatever. That too will eventually cruft up, of course.
- aranchelk 5y ago> Purescript looks great but there is so much Javascript dependency that I'm afraid to go near it. Are you referring to JS dependencies in the core libraries (stuff like Effect, Aff, etc) or in community packages (or just everything)?
- throwaway81523 5y agoEverything I guess. From what I can tell, it's not possible to build or install purescript without also installing the whole npm universe, which is a bug-addled security nightmare. So I spent a while on the purescript website but have never actually run it. I might install it on a bare vm sometime. I don't want it on any machines that I actually use.