Elm in Production: 25K Lines Later

Re:Elm in Production: 25K Lines Later by masklinn on Monday July 31, 2017 @03:48AM (#14890171)

There's also Purescript, which is built for the web but has many of the goodies you'd expect from Haskell.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elm in Production: 25K Lines Later by kahnpro on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:19AM (#14890730)

I tried out Purescript for a project and didn't think it's ready for production... Generic encoding/decoding was painful, the lack of good dependency management was painful, too many things were either missing or immature. I hope in a year or two the story will be better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elm in Production: 25K Lines Later by KirinDave on Monday July 31, 2017 @10:19AM (#14892201)

PureScript is a rapidly moving target. When did you try?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elm in Production: 25K Lines Later by reitanqild on Monday July 31, 2017 @11:57AM (#14893097)

Eh, I don't know PureScript but IMO you just added another reason why it isn't production ready.

Unless they are really really good at keeping backwards compability in both language and build tools.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elm in Production: 25K Lines Later by KirinDave on Monday July 31, 2017 @01:26PM (#14894054)

Nope, they break things all the time. Or at least, they did one major break earlier this year. "Production ready" is different from "should I use this ever at all though."

Doesn't really answer the question I posed though.

[ Parent | on HN ]