Hacker News Reader

I'm guessing pragmatism and practicality is why they went with Elm over PureScript? If their backend is in Haskell then it seems like they have devs who know it well enough to use PS.

View on HN

From my limited experience, I would say PureScript sounds more practical. You can choose your own UI engine, and has additional language features that are useful like typeclasses. It also compiles without needing a runtime baked in to the output.

When you hit a wall you can probably work around it in Purescript whereas I feel you are too sandboxed in with Elm and you'd have to start patching your Elm source to get around it.

It's more likely that they tried Elm first and liked it so they thought they might be able to use Haskell as well.

I actually find PureScript quite practical by design and goals (for example the ffi and readable generated code).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com