4 ms·

I'm sure it's very clever, but the result (http://tonyday567.github.io/static/index-auto.html http://tonyday567.github.io/static/index-auto.html) didn't work fo

I'm sure it's very clever, but the result (http://tonyday567.github.io/static/index-auto.html http://tonyday567.github.io/static/index-auto.html) didn't work for me in Chrome (but did in Firefox). I suppose the unfortunate problem with this is that delivering it with an issue like that would mean that approximately 99.99% of the web developers out there would have no idea how to fix it (the generated JS is utterly incomprehensible, of course).

a-saleh 11y ago
That is something I was worried about, because afaik, ghcjs is still fairly experimental. But ability to use ghc's magic to produce javascript sounds aluring :-) I think, that if you could integrate source-map capabilities (haven't tried http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sourcemap http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sourcemap yet) it might make the debug process more bearable. But if you would be looking for haskell-like-language with more comprehensible to-javascript output, http://www.purescript.org/ http://www.purescript.org/ pleasantly suprised me (even though I had time to barely get past the hello world :-)
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  I wanted to use PureScript, but the language is too unstable for me. They're getting rid of lists and pattern matching for them in the next version, for example, because they made the mistake of using JS's Array type.
  - codygman 11y ago
    Can you list some ways/reasons Purescript is too unstable for you? Maybe a link to the JS Array type mistake? I've used purescript for some semi-serious stuff before and didn't notice anything unstable.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      The next minor version of PureScript is changing everything. That's scary.
      - purescript 11y ago
        s/minor/major