Re:PureScript
by pitaj on Friday December 09, 2016 @11:14PM
(#13143981)
I think PureScript would have been much more popular from the get go if it used a syntax closer to existing JS syntax. This is why TypeScript is so popular, and also why CoffeeScript is now very unpopular among Javascripters.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:PureScript
by harpocrates on Saturday December 10, 2016 @02:15PM
(#13147324)
I think the point of PureScript was to have a Haskell that would compile to JS, but which (unlike GHCJS) would have breaking changes to integrate better with JS features. Trying to look like JavaScript might be a bit hard then...
That said, I'm curious about what sorts of things you think they could have done to have a more JS-like syntax. Any ideas?