[mikekchar]

Yeah I read this a few weeks ago and was similarly put off. I will give him one thing: it got me to start thinking about what I wanted in a functional language that compiles into JS, which ultimately steered me towards Purescript.

I think fundamentally he's correct, but the point that he is missing is the intended audience of Elm. He was not it. Elm is much easier to grasp than Purescript, for instance. There is less complicated syntax and there are less complicated features. I would would be quite happy to use it in a team that isn't familiar with FP and who wanted to use it for front end code. In fact, although I have yet to do a large project with it, I might even lean toward Elm over JS/CS and React. It just seems a lot more straight forward, with less options available for hanging yourself.

But, like I said, generally I agree with him wrt a general programming language. Purescript is a much better fit for that. I thought about trying to write some Elm code on server side, but it just seems like putting a square peg in a round hole. Also, having played with it, the code generation in Purescript seems really, really good. I have no trouble envisioning what it's going to generate for me, which I like.

[grayrest]

> it got me to start thinking about what I wanted in a functional language that compiles into JS

I investigated Elm just after the 0.17 release, decided I was fine with it but didn't really love the language. I've since moved to investigating F# and the Fable compiler. While it's unlikely that someone who prefers Purescript would prefer an ML derivative, I feel I should mention it for other people reading the thread from the front page and prefer having imperative escape hatches.

The Ocaml to JS compilers (Bucklescript/js_of_ocaml) also produce nice js output but my background with Clojure has left me enjoying the benefits of being a functional language that's part of a larger ecosystem and I'm comfortable enough with .net core to be willing to treat F# as a viable language outside windows.

[darkseas]

Can I ask if you have found any equivalent to the Elm Architecture in Purescript?

I have looked at Elm, and Purescript and now Bucklescript, but I have not yet seen, or wired up myself, something like the Elm architecture.

I should probably buckle down and learn the wiring I need myself, but I have been finding the typing a little tough.

[pka]

Yep, there are several.

[0] https://github.com/paf31/purescript-thermite

[1] https://github.com/alexmingoia/purescript-pux

[2] https://github.com/slamdata/purescript-halogen

[houli]

Purescript Pux looks to be what you're looking for https://github.com/alexmingoia/purescript-pux/

[agrafix]

I've made https://github.com/agrafix/purescript-apparch

[3rwww1]

I agree with most of this, but I beg to differ with the last bit :

> [writing] some Elm code on server side [...] just seems like putting a square peg in a round hole

We are actually writing server-side elm for a living. We mostly have a Scala background and we actually think elm is a pretty great fit for backend code.

Agreed, the absence of typeclasses is a limitation of the language. Yes, it means, you can't have a `Set RandomObject` or `Dict RandomObject SomethingElse` (among other things) and that can get pretty frustrating for folks coming from almost any other strongly typed language.

However the real question here is not "is this language worthless because of that", but rather "can I overcome that limitation for my specific use case ?".

My personal take : - If you are considering a switch from JS to elm (server or client), the point seems moot, as the language features described here are far from being available in JS. - elm suits _some_ server side application very well. Not _all_ server side application.