When comparing Haste vs Earl Grey, the Slant community recommends Haste for most people. In the question“What are the best languages that compile to JavaScript? ” Haste is ranked 19th while Earl Grey is ranked 29th. The most important reason people chose Haste is:
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.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion 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 Powerful hygienic macros
Earl Grey's macro system allows for creating powerful control structures that look just like builtin ones. EG also supports macro libraries which allows developers to provide their macros/DSLs for others to use.
Pro Pattern matching
Pattern matching is an incredibly powerful tool that, once you've tried, you cannot live without. This is not your average hacked-together pattern matching but a complete and integral feature to the language.
Pro ECMAScript 6 Asynchrony
Earl Grey provides Promises based on ECMAScript version 6 and as many NPM libraries already implement. Earl Grey also provides a promisify
function that converts old-fashioned callback-style asynchrony to promises.
Pro Fully compatible with Node.js ecosystem
Anything available on NPM can be used just as easily with Earl Grey. In fact, everything else can be used too! Earl Grey has interfaces to Browserify, Webpack, and even experimental support for SystemJS. Earl Grey can even be used to generate npm packages that any node-compatible language can use!
Cons
Con Lacks some minor Haskell functionality
Lacks support for Template Haskell.
Con Not true static typing
EG gives you the tools to implement your own type-checking inside of argument lists and elsewhere but there's no analysis done at compile-time like other compile-to-js languages.
Con Unfamiliar syntax
While the language shares a lot of DNA with Python, there are still many new (and interesting) features/sugar that may take some time to get used to.
