liquidhaskell VS purescript

master should already be GHC 9 ready, it just so it happens that we didn't released it on Hackage due to the fact that, practically speaking, GHC 9.0.2 is not very widely used as I think we had some minor issues, but in principle it should work, at least with cabal: https://github.com/ucsd-progsys/liquidhaskell/blob/develop/cabal.ghc9.project

A web application makes use of these same ingredients, i.e. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, but it uses significantly more JavaScript. As the JavaScript powering your web application grows in size it can bring with it a variety of problems that a few languages, like TypeScript, ReScript, PureScript, and Elm, have attempted to solve. Each of the aforementioned compile to JavaScript languages have their pros and cons but it is beyond the scope of this article to get into those details. Suffice it to say, my preference is Elm. It is also not the goal of this article to convince you to use Elm but only to show you how Elm fits into the flow of creating a web application and hosting it on GitHub Pages. So let's continue by adding Elm to our project.

Naturally I’d recommend using a better language such as ReScript or Elm or PureScript or F#‘s Fable + Elmish, but “React” is the king right now and people perceive TypeScript as “less risky” for jobs/hiring, so here we are.

Unless you want to switch to https://www.purescript.org/.

PureScript[1][2] seems pretty alive these days. From my relatively small, self-contained experiments, it's a lot more flexible and expressive than Elm at the expense of (maybe?) being a bit harder to learn up-front.

[1]: https://www.purescript.org/

[2]:https://github.com/purescript/purescript

*cough* I mean Purescript.