I don't see any reason not to use PureScript, if you don't simply want to do architecture in JavaScript, in a functional style.

Underscore, for JavaScript, is minimal and lightweight and you don't have to rely on compilers that remain experimental. It's experimental enough, writing JavaScript. But, you can leverage PureScript's Haskell-like-to JavaScript compilation workflow, much as one might for ClojureScript, and then, remaining in the Haskell ecosystem under Haskell-style BSD rather than BDFL community licensing, proceed to develop your own IP such that you can write maintainable JavaScript or Haskell code, with Purescript.

Just my 2c

Al

On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 16:24 Dennis Raddle <dennis.raddle@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Leandro Ostera <leandro@ostera.io> wrote:
Iā€™d point you right at ReasonML then ā€” Ocaml dressed as JavaScript šŸ™ŒšŸ¼

And the ReasonReact bindings of course.


I should add that I don't want to learn another language... my time is already limited enough. My Haskell experience should make Purescript easy, and the way Purescript fits elegantly with JavaScript should mean that I can learn what I need to about JS libraries, and incorporate them, without any inefficiency.

Learning OCaml, however... too much. With Scala, I learned that a combo OO/FP language requires a lot of effort to master... it's not just a matter of knowing FP and knowing OO and then assuming you can mix them expertly. It's really an entirely new category of language.

I would be willing to consider another Haskell-like language in place of Purescript, and a framework other than React.


D
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.