When comparing Utrecht Haskell Compiler vs Imba, the Slant community recommends Utrecht Haskell Compiler for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions to "The JavaScript Problem"?” Utrecht Haskell Compiler is ranked 18th while Imba is ranked 28th. The most important reason people chose Utrecht Haskell Compiler is:
No need to learn any new semantics, it's just a switch to a different compiler.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro It's just Haskell
No need to learn any new semantics, it's just a switch to a different compiler.
Pro Flexible FFI
UHC uses a printf-like syntax for its FFI, which is flexible enough to minimize the need for wrapper functions, when, e.g., calling methods on objects. It also supports %*
, for working with functions that take arbitrary parameters, such as concat
.
UHC also has support for wrapper imports and dynamic imports, for passing Haskell functions as callbacks to Javascript, or dealing with curried Javascript functions, respectively.
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 No support for Language Extensions
No support for things like Arrow Syntax - this is particularly a disadvantage when compared to options like Elm (which was designed around good syntax for Arrowized FRP), if you're looking to do Functional Reactive front-end development.
Con Still a young language
But looks very promising.
