Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the major goals of Elm is being easy to learn, both from a language and a library point of view. PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Haskell as a language, with all of the power of Haskell but its complexity as well. Elm is going to be much more approachable, and has a major focus on readable documentation and simple, straightforward concepts. It takes trade offs in language features in exchang…
> PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Haskell as a language, with all of the power of Haskell but its complexity as well Is it really no simpler? A few common complexity complaints i hear about Haskell that don't apply to purescript in order of frequency: - Haskell is lazy by default - has too many language extensions - records pollute global namespace - has fmap and map - $ is confusing
Re: New Adventures for Elm
#91Except that Purescript uses the liberty from Haskell legacy libraries to become even more hardcore on algebra and categoric language. The relatively small user base also consist of experienced Haskellers, and the libraries tend to be quite advanced. For example, the "basic component" in the beginning of the Halogen tutorial already mentions natural transformations (which made me instantly intrigued, personally, but I'm one of those experienced Haskellers).