Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Haste vs F#, the Slant community recommends F# for most people. In the question“What are the best Functional languages to learn for web-frontend development?” F# is ranked 4th while Haste is ranked 11th. The most important reason people chose F# is:
F#'s syntax tends to be terse while remaining very readable and easy to understand without being a chore to write.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Client and Server as the same application
Haste was designed to allow both the client and server to be written as parts of the same, type-safe application. This is in stark contrast to most other options, where the client and server are considered two separate entities, resulting in extra manual validation code and more chances for type errors.
Pro Almost full power of Haskell
Haste supports the Haskell 2010 standard except for Template Haskell as well as most GHC extensions.
Pro Automatic, type safe program slicing
Haste lets you write client and server as a single program, automatically generating code for the server as well as the client, giving you full type safety even across the Internet.
Pro Generates small, reasonably performant code
Pro Concise syntax
F#'s syntax tends to be terse while remaining very readable and easy to understand without being a chore to write.
Pro Easier transition from other paradigms
Since F# is not a purely functional language, it lends itself to being more easily picked up by programmers that have experience with other paradigms.
Pro .NET Interoperability
Since F# runs on the Common Language Runtime or CLR, it has access to the entire .NET Framework, as well as libraries written in other .NET languages such as C#, VB.NET, and C++/CLI.
Pro Multiplatform, it runs on .Net Core
Forget Xamarin and Mono. F# now runs on the multiplatform .Net Core!
Pro You can run F# in the browser
Thanks to a project like Fable, you can write and run your client app in F# and run it over JavaScript. It allows you to share code between your server and client.
Pro Natively supported by Visual Studio
This is a .Net language natively supported by Visual Studio. Though it is not as tooled up as C# the support is still substantial. In particular, C# deployment scenarios can be enabled for it with small C# wrapper projects. Integration with Visual Studio provides: IntelliSense, debugging, projects an other features.
Pro Fall into the pit of success
F# directs you into a workflow where the right way is the path of least resistance.
Coming from a C# background, its restrictions might feel arbitrary at first (e.g., what do you mean my code has to be in dependency order!? Arbitrary alphabetical or bust!), but you'll soon realize that your code is cohesive, concise and consistent in a way that it never was before - and you can compile and run with confidence!
Pro F# is supported by Xamarin
Thanks to Xamarin, F# is a functional language that you can use to build for iOS, Android and Windows.
Cons
Con Lacks some minor Haskell functionality
Lacks support for Template Haskell.
Con Has no ad-hoc polymorphism (á la Type Classes)
You have generics, you have interfaces, you have inheritance, you have a lot of things at your disposal but you don't have Type Clases. They can be emulated using some clever constructs but there's nothing like having the real thing.
Con Infested with OOP
Still relying on .NET OOP libraries.
