3 ms·
You might be interested in trying PureScript as well. It has good FFI support and as a consequence there exist wellmaintained bindings into react etc. It can al
by ctenb 5y ago
You might be interested in trying PureScript as well. It has good FFI support and as a consequence there exist wellmaintained bindings into react etc. It can also run on other backends beside javascript, which makes that you can use it for backend programming too.
- greyblake 5y agoThanks for your comment! I am aware of PureScript and even tried it a little bit 3-4 years ago, but was not aware that it has good interops too!
- throwaway81523 5y agoYeah I also noticed Purescript was missing from your comparisons list. It's the only one of these that I've looked at much, and it seemed like the best of them, though I wasn't aware of the issue with ES6 modules. I don't use JS at all for now, so I haven't been up to date about anything in it.
- fbn79 5y agoI was looking to try PureScript but the lack of support for ES6 modules still halt me from invest time in that language (see https://github.com/purescript/purescript/issues/3613 https://github.com/purescript/purescript/issues/3613)
- ctenb 5y agoThat's right, though that feature is very high on the priority list, so it's probably going to be supported fairly soon.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y agoYes, out of all alternatives I looked at, I did choose PureScript because of the (relatively) easy JS interop (which Elm lacks), not needing the JVM and having types (Clojurescript) and the better async handling without the need of `then`s and the function 'pyramids' and, last, but not least, the lack of (C-) JS-Style syntax.