Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariMint vs PureScript
When comparing Mint vs PureScript, the Slant community recommends PureScript for most people. In the question“What are the best languages that compile to JavaScript? ” PureScript is ranked 5th while Mint is ranked 44th. The most important reason people chose PureScript is:
Has Typeclasses and RankNTypes
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Writen in Crystal (Language)
Crystal is one of the best and elegant languages.
Pro Constructs for synchronous and asynchronous computations
Pro Easy to learn and write
Everything is an expression.
Pro HTML and CSS integration
HTML can be written with minimal differences.
Scoped .CSS can be written for elements in components.
Pro Good error support
200+ unique error messages to help you on the way.
Pro Everything is typed
Everything is typed using a simple type system
Pro Dead code elimination
Only used parts of the code compiles into the final bundle.
Pro Built-in formatter
Mint has a built-in formatter to format your code, it can run standalone or with the development server.
Pro Batteries included
Mint contains everything you need to build the frontend of web applications from styling to data storage through HTTP requests to testing.
Pro Integrated testing
Testing is part of the language and there is a test runner built in which runs tests in the browser.
Pro Higher kinded types
Has Typeclasses and RankNTypes
Pro High performance FFI code
The Eff monad, which is used for FFI code, optimizes out calls to bind, and supports tail call optimization, resulting in clean, efficient Javascript. The psc compiler also specifically recognizes the ST monad, and transforms scoped variables into mutable Javascript variables, for even more efficient code.
Pro Type safety
Compiling should be your first unit test. A tight type system (static and hopefully strong) will catch many logic errors that are often difficult to spot through debugging. In languages like PureScript, if it compiles, it often runs properly.
Pro Pure functional language
You cannot have side effects, unless a function is explicitly defined as so.
Pro Modules can be compiled to CommonJS
Modules compiled to CommonJS can be included with 'require', making it incredibly simple to call Purescript code from Javascript.
Pro Has row polymorphism and extensible effects
Pro FFI
FFI system is quite good and easy to use. You can import functions curried or not curried. Records and arrays use native JS objects and arrays.
Pro Thorough documentation
The Purescript website has fairly thorough documentation for all of the language's features, and the Purescript blog contains several examples of practical usage.
Pro Awesome web frameworks
Thermite (React)
Halogen (VDOM, similar to ELM)
And hit these up with Signals, Isolated/(Managed?) Components, powerful functions and FFI
Cons
Con Lots of dependencies needed to get started
Purescript is written in Haskell, but meant to be used with Node.js. As a result, to get started , users must install ghc, cabal, node.js, grunt, and bower. Purescript also has its own compiler, and different semantics form Haskell, and so even after installing, there's still some overhead to getting productive with Purescript.
Con Lack of good IDE/tooling support
Con Documentation not updated
Con Ecosystem not stable
Con Restrictive FFI
Functions exported are all curried, and must be called as such from Javascript. The FFI syntax for importing Javascript functions, while slightly simpler and more readable than UHC/Fay's, means that calls to methods on objects must be wrapped to pass the object explicitly as a parameter.
Con Slow compilation
On large project, for example Halogen
