deprecated-coalton-prototype VS Elm

can't jerk

I used to use CL quite a bit, but have since abandoned it for Haskell, so I'm a bit biased.

There's a number of issues with that:

- I'd be missing all the optimizations that can be performed due to purity.

- There's more to Haskell's type system than just vanilla Hindley-Milner, and the implementation of it isn't particularly trivial. https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton is the closest thing and it's still missing a large amount of the type system.

- Doing the implementation would be a significant amount of work to get it to integrate well with the language, and it would be a layer tightly glued on top instead of integrated with the language.

- A major part of Haskell is the standard library, a good chunk of the semantics of Haskell people use on a day to day basis, like monads and etc, are a part of the standard library.

This looks like something Common Lisp does better, however I have too little Clojure experience to compare. CL (and SBCL in particular) does "good enough" static type checks, it throws warning at compile time (when we compile one function with a keystroke). We can also precise our function types gradually. It isn't a HM type system (Coalton[1] could be it) but it's already great (compared to no compile-time types at all).

Oh, about interactive development: that's sure, CL shines here. Objects get updated (lazily) after a class change, we can install Quicklisp libraries without restarting the image, etc. It's very smooth.

1: https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton

Help out with Coalton.

If you like this kind of stuff, maybe you can help implement type classes in Coalton.

(there's a work-in-progress library to add a dialect of ML on top of CL: coalton)

Elm [1] is based on a similar idea. Build your app from pure functions that return HTML tags.

[1] https://elm-lang.org/

You also wouldn't really be creating your own new programing language. You would be creating something that can run JavaScript by following JavaScript standards and syntax. You might be able to add some non-standard features of your own on top of those standards, or include your own standard library of helpers or utilities, but you can't completely make a new or alternative language and then load it in the browser (or at least not by reimplementing ECMAScript standards... you actually can make your own language that runs within any Javascript enviroment, if you provide an interpreter or compiler that transforms it into valid JS. Some people have done something like this, eg Elm: https://elm-lang.org/).

You should at least have a look at https://elm-lang.org/ it is a pure functional language like Haskell (although with fewer fancy syntax/type classes) but it has some lovely libraries for visualisation and even with plain elm (+ elm-ui) doing string transformations can be easily done.

I get it. However, the whole point of using Unions to narrow your types, ensure only a set of possible scenarios can occur, and only access data of a particular union when it’s safe to do so. That’s some of what pattern matching can provide, and 100% of what using switch statements in TypeScript with their Discriminated Unions can provide. Yes, it’s not 100% exhaustive, but TypeScript is not soundly typed, and even Elm which is still has the same issue TypeScript does: You’re running in JavaScript where anything is possible. So it’s good enough to build with and much better than what you had.

The beauty of a language like Elm (and other lambda-calculus / functional programming inspired languages) is that there's very little transformation involved in going from an idea to code. And that seems to have a big impact on getting things done.

I think the most fun and approachable way for beginners to build games with functional programming is with Elm [1].

See a few (small, demo) games built by the community in [2] .

Notice Elm has abandoned the FRP approach in favor of Model-View-Update [3].

[1] https://elm-lang.org/