Fork me on GitHub

have not, just did, thanks. Yeah Phil Freeman looks like one of those mostrously productive people


my haskeller friend said purescript syntax actually looks like an improvement on haskell, that's quite something


the rub for me though, is that as a javascript replacement we're still looking for lots of interop


So for side-effectful coding you can certainly say, stick it in a do block and make the rest pure


if you code carefully enough you can also achieve that, and deftest your pure code separately


but in the end when you're FFI-ing against say a game engine, I can't immediately see how this will benefit


so when I was using haxe for dom manipulation and running custom animations, sometimes i got the pixel values off and everything looked bad


and the easiest way for me was to debug that visually after a debug-recompile loop


as fast as haxe compiler was it was still several seconds to see the chage for me


my point is even when you have mostly pure code, I don't have a good sense of how pure code of any kind really helps once you're in DOM land?


in which case the live programming style in cljs has been night and day, plus atoms/react


so the purescript doc doesn't mention live coding, so I can see one doing this "code checks out" but the render is still wrong


@whacked: well i only suggested it because 1. i've heard that the js output is clean and 2. it has a type checker (which i gather is why you were looking at Flow) (and otherwise it seems to be fairly well regarded in the compile-to-js space)


but yeah, cljs is definitely really nice in both the interop and live programming depts.