When comparing asm.js vs Utrecht Haskell Compiler, the Slant community recommends Utrecht Haskell Compiler for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions to "The JavaScript Problem"?” Utrecht Haskell Compiler is ranked 18th while asm.js is ranked 35th. The most important reason people chose Utrecht Haskell Compiler is:
No need to learn any new semantics, it's just a switch to a different compiler.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Fast
The compiled code of asm.js can run really fast thanks to it being restricted in how it works.
Pro It's just Haskell
No need to learn any new semantics, it's just a switch to a different compiler.
Pro Flexible FFI
UHC uses a printf-like syntax for its FFI, which is flexible enough to minimize the need for wrapper functions, when, e.g., calling methods on objects. It also supports %*
, for working with functions that take arbitrary parameters, such as concat
.
UHC also has support for wrapper imports and dynamic imports, for passing Haskell functions as callbacks to Javascript, or dealing with curried Javascript functions, respectively.
Cons
Con No support for Language Extensions
No support for things like Arrow Syntax - this is particularly a disadvantage when compared to options like Elm (which was designed around good syntax for Arrowized FRP), if you're looking to do Functional Reactive front-end development.