This is the language of the gods.

You mispelled Forth

>>61690702
No HKT.

>>61690467
Elm is easier to use.

>>61691527
Purescript is maturing pretty quickly. Also, if you like to keep things simple, you can use Pux for an Elm-architecture web app, which is just as simple to use as Elm, but has a few extra features that you can use if you want to do something nontrivial.

Alternatively, you can use Halogen, which has much more complex types, but also lets you make components that are more robust, modular, and reusable.

>>61690467
I gods existed they'd be almighty, thus not in the need of user interfaces like programming languages.

>>61690467
Pretty nice with less cruft than Haskell. However for web stuff you need a decent sized project to make it worth choosing over JavaScript/TypeScript.

>>61692736
That depends desu. Purescript and Elm have the advantage of replacing HTML/CSS as well.

They can be nicer than HTML+CSS+JS for tiny projects as well because it feels more unified. Ultimately it depends on preference. Elm is simpler for the tiny trivial stuff though, while Purescript is nicer for more complex projects.

>>61693091
With PureScript you need to deal with a compiler and package manager. Then you have tons of dependencies because the core devs publish small packages. So you deal with breaking compiler changes, breaking package changes. The web ecosystem isn't great, most of the time it's easier to just write an FFI binding. I don't think Aff is all that impressive when you have Fetch+Promises in JS now.. The generated code is big and unminifiable.. Lots of downsides. So I think if you can write the front-end in <1k lines of JS, you should use JS.

>>61690467
wake me up when they stop using bower.

>>61690467
It doesn't seem like Russian.

>>61690467
That's not SPITBOL.