Talk:PureScript
Appearance
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed improvements:
[edit]Add the following sections:
History
- Maybe rename to "History and relation to other languages"
- Mention influence by Roy, which is mentioned on https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/2ae4723320c3591ac33f138cd2327c9edfe2d4bf/Related-Projects.md
Roy is probably the most similar language on the list, and was a large influence on the development of PureScript. There are however, key differences in the foreign function interface, the type system and the choice of development language (Haskell vs. Javascript) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.74.52 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Code examples
- At least a "Hello World"
- Maybe also a JavaScript FFI example, highlightling the ease of integration with existing JS-codebases/frameworks
Implementations
- Mention alternative implementations, in particular purescript-native which targets C++ as a backend instead of EcmaScript.
Applications
- Industry: Despite PureScript being a relatively young language, there are already several companys which rely on PureScript for a significant portion of their codebase. A few of the major ones would be worth mentioning here, underlining the real-world significance and strength of PureScript. Easily verifiable references:
Ecosystem
- documentation on pursuit
- Pulp
- Bower
- psc-package
- Editor integrations (vscode, atom, vim/emacs)
Community
- Maybe mention the discourse, github, slack channels, ...
Future Directions
- Which aspects of the language are stable, which are in the progress of being extended & improved?
- Are there any essential design-principles or philosophies that drive the evolution of the language? E.g. in C++, a central philosophy is "you should not have to pay for what you don't use"... are there any similar philosophies driving the evolution of PureScript?
- are there plans for standardization?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.75.42 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Evaluation strategy
[edit]The strict evaluation is clearly formulated in the documentation in the context of JS:
- "As the evaluation strategy matches JavaScript"
- "Keeping strict evaluation also means there is no need for a runtime system or overly complicated JavaScript output."
I'm not sure that makes lazy evaluation backends "non-conforming". I did not find this language in PureScript's documentation. Nowhere man (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)