When comparing transcrypt 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 transcrypt is ranked 24th. 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 Able to statically type check using mypy
Pro Uses Python
Pro Transpiler rather than interpretor in javascript
There is less code to transfer.
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.