PureScript vs Vue.js
When comparing PureScript vs Vue.js, the Slant community recommends PureScript for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions to "The JavaScript Problem"?” PureScript is ranked 5th while Vue.js is ranked 23rd. The most important reason people chose PureScript is:
Has Typeclasses and RankNTypes
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
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
Pro Can be used with any front-end stack
Vue can easily be integrated with other front-end libraries. This makes it an extremely versatile tool and it's easy to fix its shortcomings or missing features by just plugging in another library.
Pro Single file component
Very useful.
Pro Lightweight
Vue.js weighs in at 16kb min+gzip.
Pro Vuex store, events system
Pro Reactivity system
Pro CLI and Webpack integration
Pro Responsive server-side rendering
Since most of the mainstream server-side rendering implementations are synchronous, they can block the server's event loop when the application is complex.
Vue implements streaming server-side rendering, which allows you to render your component, get a readable stream and directly pipe that to the HTTP response. This allows you to have a responsive server and decreases the time your users have to wait before they get your rendered content.
Pro Supports inline templating
Although you can build components in JavaScript files, you can also use inline handlebars-like templating in your HTML views where simplicity is often a more sane choice.
Pro Can be made even lighter
Since the template-to-virtual-DOM and compiler can be separated, you can compile the templates in your machine and then deploying only the interpreter which is 12KB minified and gzipped.
Pro Support for both templates and JSX
You can choose to use either a templating language, or if you feel it's necessary to drop on a lower virtual-dom level, you can use JSX. This is simply done by replacing the template
option with a render
function.
Or alternatively, you can embed functions inside templates by using the <render>
tag.
Pro SEO friendly
Starting with Vue 2.0, Vue supports server-side rendering. This helps with SEO a lot, since the views are rendered directly on the server, which are indexed by search engines.
Pro VueRouter
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
Con Poor typescript support
Very basic typescript support.
Con Very enterpris-ey in design and tooling
Alternative Products
