When comparing Miso vs Servant, the Slant community recommends Servant for most people. In the question“What are the best Haskell web frameworks for building RESTful web services?” Servant is ranked 3rd while Miso is ranked 12th. The most important reason people chose Servant is:
Routes are defined end-to-end with type declarations. This allows your API to be introspective, serving its own documentation and derived query code, via jQuery for Javascript and `servant-client` for Haskell.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Fast
Pro Easy
Pro Isomorphic
Pro Virtual DOM
Pro Type-sharing
Pro Type-safe routing
Pro Automatic documentation and Haskell/JS query generation
Routes are defined end-to-end with type declarations. This allows your API to be introspective, serving its own documentation and derived query code, via jQuery for Javascript and servant-client
for Haskell.
Pro Excellent documentation
We Haskellers are accustomed to flying completely blind when using many libraries, luckily with Servant this isn’t the case. It features comprehensive tutorials, literate haskell examples for many use cases and great Haddock documentation for everything else.
Pro No Template Haskell
Everything is done within the confines of the existing type system, which helps keep compile times down.
Pro Nice ecosystem
Fairly large ecosystem of related modules for additional functionality.
Cons
Con Bloated
Requires nix, ghcjs, and a lot of other sources of significant technical debt to the project.
Con Complicated internals
Extending Servant's existing functionality can be made difficult by the complexity of its type level machinery. Lucky most use cases are able to avoid this.
Con Route specifications and implementations are only connected by their position in a large type list
You actually have to count the index of the entry where you changed the specification, and then go and change the entry at the same index in the list of implementation methods. There is no other indication that the two are connected. This along with complex and verbose route definitions, makes it very hard to safely make changes to an API.
Con Route definitions are more verbose and complicated than other options
You are required to define a number of separate complicated types and their implementations which are usually spread out over a number of files. This makes it hard to figure out the API.