Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariTypeScript vs Elm
When comparing TypeScript vs Elm, the Slant community recommends TypeScript for most people. In the question“What is the best programming language to learn first?” TypeScript is ranked 6th while Elm is ranked 13th. The most important reason people chose TypeScript is:
Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference. It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Optional static typing
Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference.
It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Pro Strong typed language
Lot of benefits of it, you can read this.
Pro Strict superset of Javascript
Every existing Javascript program is already a valid TypeScript program giving it the best support for existing libraries, which is particularly useful if you need to integrate with an existing Javascript code base.
Pro First party Visual Studio support
As a Microsoft developed project, it has first party Visual Studio support that's on par with its C# support with features like syntax sensitive statement completion.
Pro Has a repository of high quality TypeScript type definitions for popular libraries
There are many ready to use and high quality TypeScript definitions for popular libraries including jquery, angular, bootstrap, d3, lodash and many-many more.
Pro Adds support for object-oriented programming
Typescript enables familiar object-oriented programming patterns: classes, inheritance, public/private methods and properties, et cetera.
Pro Polyfill for ES6 fat-arrow syntax
Typescript implements the fat arrow syntax, which always maintains the current context for this and is a shorter/more convenient syntax than traditional function definition.
Pro Great support for React, integrated typed JSX parsing
Strongly typed react components, so UI "templating" automatically gains type safety.
Pro Great support for editors (Sublime, Code, Vim, IntelliJ...)
Pro Works well with existing Javascript code
Both can call Javascript code and be called by Javascript code. Making transitioning to the language very easy.
Pro Compiles to very native looking code
Compiles to simple looking Javascript making it easy to understand what is happening and learn the language (if you already know Javascript).
Pro Built and supported by Microsoft
Being built by Microsoft, TypeScript is much more likely than most other similar open-source projects to receive continued long-term support, good documentation, and a steady stream of development.
Pro Ability to do functional programming
Pro Clear roadmap
TypeScript has a clear and defined roadmap with rapid and constant releases.
Pro Low number of logical errors brought in by built-in type annotations
TypeScript's built-in type signatures allow developers to fully document interfaces and make sure that they will be correctly compiled. Therefore, cutting down on logical errors.
Pro Works well with Angular 2
Angular 2 is built using TypeScript and applications built using it can make use of that (or not).
Pro No run-time exceptions
Lack of run-time exceptions makes it easy to produce large swathes of reliable front-end code without drowning in tests.
Pro Inferred static typing
ML static typing is great because it's always there, you just choose how explicit you want to be and how much you want the compiler to do.
Pro Super easy refactoring with very helpful compiler errors
In no other language you can refactor so easy without any worries, since the compiler will guide you through. It is like TDD but than compiler-error driven.
Pro Designed around high-level front-end development
As Elm was designed as a front-end langauge, it has out of the box support for things like DOM-element creation, letting programmers focus on their application logic, rather than implementation details specific to the web.
Pro Great and simple way to learn Purely Functional Programming
You can try to apply some functional programming ideas in other languages that have an imperative basis, but you haven't seen the real power unless you tried it in the environment of purely functional programming. Elm is a simple language with great learning resources and easy graphical output, which makes it easy to explore the power of functional programming. Plus programming in Elm is very readable.
Pro Good tooling
All major editors have great support. With Atom for example, Elm plugins are available for linting, formatting, make/compiler support and Elmjutsu will simply overflow you with super useful functions, like navigate to referenced definition and show expression type.
Pro Batteries included
The Elm Architecture means you don't need to spend valuable time and effort choosing the right frameworks, state management libraries, or build tooling. It's all built in.
Pro Static module system
Elm uses easy to use modules.
Use:
import List
import List as L
import List exposing (..)
import List exposing ( map, foldl )
import Maybe exposing ( Maybe )
import Maybe exposing ( Maybe(..) )
import Maybe exposing ( Maybe(Just) )Creation:
module MyModule exposing (foo, bar)Pro Missing syntactic sugar
Easy to learn, most functions have only one way, not 5 alternatives where you must study where to best use what.
Pro Growing community
Pro Interactive Programming and Hot Swapping
Support for hot swapping and interactive programming is included.
Pro Easy to code review
The lack of side-effects and simple, consistent language semantics make it easy to quickly review incoming changes.
Pro Higher confidence in code correctness and quality
Pure functions, immutable data structures, amazing compiler, clean and homologous syntax used for HTML, logic, and optionally to replace CSS, elimination of entire classes of bugs so you don't even need most unit tests. These factors lead to better code, better programs, higher confidence, and ultimately, more satisfaction.
Pro Not quite Haskell semantics
Luckily you do not have to learn Haskell to be able to do any Elm. It is meant to be a language that compiles to Javascript, so for Javascript programmers (Front end) not for CS students who want to learn as many different algorithms as possible.
Cons
Con Too similar to Javascript
Presents some advantages compared to Javascript, but because it is designed to be a superset of Javascript, it means all the bad parts of Javascript are still present.
Con Type checking not enforced by default
You have to use compiler flags to make sure it catches flaws like usage of implicit any, etc.
Con Type inference coverage is incomplete
The default type when declaring and using a variable is any. For example, the following should break but does not:
function add(a:number) { return a + 1 }
function addAB(a, b) {return add(a) + b}
addAB("this should break but doesn't :(", 100)In order to avoid this, you have to declare type signatures for every variable or parameter or set the flag --noImplicityAny when running the compiler.
Con Requires "this" for field access
Even in cases were there is no ambiguity, you still have to use "this.fieldName" instead of just "fieldName".
Con Syntax is too verbose
Con No support for dead code elimination
Typescript compiler does not remove dead code from generated file(s), you have to use external tools to remove unused code after compilation. This is harder to achieve, because Typescript compiler eliminated all type information.
Con No support for conditional compilation
There is no clean way to have debug and release builds compiled from the same source, where the release version removes all debugging tools and outputs from the generated file(s).
Con Awful error messages
Comparing to Elm or Rust for example, TypeScript's error messages won't say you very much. For example if you change method of interface which your class implements it won't say your class have incorrect implementation. Instead it'll show error in usage of instances of class. In some cases it can spoil hours of your work trying to figure out why your parameters are incorrect.
Con Technical debt
As consequence of not enforcing type checking.
Con No Java-like package structure
If you prefer a Java-like approach of partitioning your code into different packages, the module system of typescript will confuse you.
Con Small community
Con No option to declare that a function throws errors
Con Lack of typeclasses
Elm doesn't have typeclasses which means some code needs to be duplicated. A fix in a function that needs typeclasses means all of the duplicates need to be fixed too.
Con limited js interop
only one way ports are available as a crude js FFI. This means you can only call functions both directions but will not get a result.
Con Harder to get buy-in from devs and mgmt
It's a total divergence from what most people are used to in the JS ecosystem. The change in syntax can be scary, the change in approaching problems can be scary. The fact that it's not backed by FANG can be scary. The fact that it's not v1.0 can be scary. The governance model and the deliberately slow release cadence can be scary. There are a couple harsh medium articles, hackernews/reddit posts out there made by people with an ax to grind that can be scary if you don't have a better picture of the Elm community, the tradeoffs that have been made, or the benefits to be had over other options. None of these are good reasons to write off further investigation of a great tech, but it happens.
Con Code Repetition
Because of the lack of genericness Elm needs a lot of code to be repeated. There are 130+ implementations of map in elms core libraries.
Con Features get removed without warning
Often features that are deemed to be misused by the community like infix operators get removed without much of a warning.
Con Community harsh if criticised
If one even dares to start a discussion about a feature on elms slack, discord, subreddit or github one will be aggressively shut down often argueing that one should use purescript instead
Con Poor Windows support
Few if any of Elm's core contributors are Windows users and breaking bugs are sometimes left for weeks or months.
Con Good for beginners not good for experts
Development in elm is quite nice until you need some more advanced features. These however are actively discontinued and removed because elm wants to establish a "single way of doing things" philosophy
Con Updates break existing code often
The last few updates of elm broke existing code in major ways.
Con Adds an additional layer of abstraction
Some users claim that Elm adds an additional layer of abstraction, meaning that it is one more hurdle between the brain and the product.
Con Functional programming itself has quite a steep learning curve
Functional programming can be quite difficult to get your head around. It takes time to unlearn object orientational habits.
Con No Genericness in the future
Currently there is no code genericness like typeclasses possible, it has been officially stated that this will never change.
Con Not database-friendly
It is lots of work to make a server or database your "one source of truth", as Elm makes you write endless JSON parse boilerplate to talk to the server.
Con No Syntactic Sugar
Often you need to write longer and less readable code because there are no alternatives that are more concise.
