[cies]

Elm is a lang and a FW in one. Very opinionated. Very batteries included.

PS is a lang. It compiles well to JS, but there is no friction against making it compile to native, apart from the time it takes to maintain that compiler backend.

On top of PS you may pick a FW. Some have React.js under the hood, some follow more closely The Elm Architecture.

Only with a FW, PS can be compared to Elm.

[_0w8t]

Elm is also a language. Surely it's libraries and runtime assume JS and DOM, but nothing prevents creating other ports of the language or creating alternative libraries.

And yes, Elm is opinionated. But that is a consequence of being very simple and pure functional language. As its typesystem does not support using monads or effects to model state with code similar in style to that in non-functional languages, one inevitably ends up with a runtime similar to Elm browser bindings in any Elm embedding.

Essentially Elm is opinionated because its pure functional style is the only style supported by the language with no escape hatches like the do blocks in Haskell or PureScript.