As others have mentioned, psc-package can be used so there is no "need" for Bower.

"Why the PureScript community uses Bower" explains why Bower was chosen: http://harry.garrood.me/blog/purescript-why-bower/

I don't understand why Bower is such a sticking point for people. It works perfectly fine for PureScript and (as the article explains) was the right tool for the job.

You can use psc-package instead of Bower.

Oh, this is great: https://github.com/purescript/psc-package

Any word of when this will be supported/promoted officially? Just got this response from one of my former JS colleagues: https://twitter.com/keirasaid/status/924169973878046721 - it's pretty hard to convince JS developers to use something that is still recommends using Bower for package management. :/

"Officially" isn't really a thing here, I feel. I mean the `purs` (formerly `psc`) compiler just gets given a list of .purs files from your build setup (pulp, custom make files, a little custom program, whatever) and recompiles what changed to the given output paths. I think they just converged on bower by accident (whatever it professes to offer, the sub-set of features required here for PS apparenty just-worked sufficiently well) but really anyone can manage their packages however they like.

psc-package does* very much look like it's going to be the "sanctioned/endorses/semi-official" tooling for pkg-mgmt one way or the other.

This popped up just now in my feed reader: https://qiita.com/kimagure/items/0d9354900d7a7dbd3864