Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Haste vs Imba, the Slant community recommends Haste for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions to "The JavaScript Problem"?” Haste is ranked 3rd while Imba is ranked 28th. 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.
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 Super super fast DOM implementation
The ‘imperative’ DOM from Imba is factors of magnitudes faster than most current virtual DOMs.
Pro Transpiles to very readable Javascript
Pro React inspired approach
Pro Close alignment between language and DOM
The DOM is a first class citizen of Imba and that allows for short elegant interaction.
Pro Ruby inspired syntax
Cons
Con Lacks some minor Haskell functionality
Lacks support for Template Haskell.
Con Still a young language
But looks very promising.
