purescript-halogen VS Laminar

There's a framework in purescript from which u can grab some ideas I think: https://github.com/purescript-halogen/purescript-halogen.

If you wanna do web frontends right now, I'd recommend Halogen for Purescript since it is maintained and has documentation.

Before 2012, all of my websites were made using HTML, CSS and a sprinkling of JS. Then, I went all-in on AngularJS, followed by React. I started using Typescript and then PureScript and learned more frameworks like Halogen and Concur. I even wrote my own UI framework called purescript-deku.

First of all I had to choose what to use to manage the User Interface. I narrowed down to two modules: Halogen and react-basic-hooks (which is a “wrapper” of the unmaintained react-basic). I decided to go with react-basic-hooks just because I work with React on a daily basis and I wanted to understand its interoperability with PureScript. I will 10/10 try Halogen too in the next future since as far as I can see is the most famous and maintained in the PureScript community.

There's also Purescript, which is sort of a Haskell for frontend. It has type classes, HKTs and so on and also has a very nice FFI. When it comes to UI libraries there is Halogen which I think is very well though out and allows for using tagless final approach. There's also react-basic but I haven't used that one myself.

My favorite webapp stack at the moment is Halogen (PureScript UI library); I have always gravitated toward functional programming and strong static typing. For commercial work, however, I use React. While it isn’t perfect it strikes, for me, the right balance of purity, composability, and simplicity.

Yeah? I wrote something to deal with it too (https://github.com/toastal/return-optics) 5.5 years ago. You arguably chose the wrong data as `(model, Cmd msg, Maybe extMsg)` instead of `(model, Cmd msg, List extMsg)` which would give you more flexibility and still functions as a monoid on [] instead of Nothing, but allows multiple messages shrug. I tried this approach more recently and it involved me having to encode all of actions in a massive tree and then I still had issues with certain messages including now having to UUID all elements that that previously I didn't need to think about. It was a mess, but the best I could do with the tools at hand.

If you compare this to Halogen (https://github.com/purescript-halogen/purescript-halogen/blo...) where you still have purity but can set up subscribers and listeners from any component. It's much easier to use and for some components like dialogs, it's much simpler. And this actually isn't the best example because with the latest Halogen, Portals (https://github.com/purescript-halogen/purescript-halogen/pul...) was introduced so you can launch a dialog on the spot instead of even needing to communicate between them at all.

Below you can find the example of a simple button component written in Halogen:

My quite niche open source project broke this threshold last year, via Github sponsorships. Of course, I put a lot of time into it, so it's not "passive income" or even "market rate income", but still, without these sponsorships I wouldn't be able to work on it so much.

The project is Laminar, a UI library for Scala.js https://laminar.dev

I've noticed that Laminar and the newly released Kyo point that they don't use a lot of macros as a feature. Laminar says "Easy to understand: no macros", while Kyo emphasizes "Note: defer is currently the only macro in Kyo. All other features use regular language constructs." It seems that using less macros is something library users will like.

https://laminar.dev/ might be what you need. Though I wish there was a more beginner friendly (I'm not from front-end world) tutorial for me to follow along.

Have you looked at Laminar and Tyrian? Especially Tyrian seems to be close to what you're looking for.

For Scala there is Laminar, which has an even flashier website with nice docs. I haven't tested it out though, as I have never used Scala.

I found this scala library called Laminar which looks super similar to solid. They use signals and has no virtual dom. State changes are represented by signals and events by event streams. Thus they seems to have feature parity with RXJS as they can model all sorts of async stuff. Best part is they get to keep writing their markup in C-style syntax than XML based JSX. It looks super elegant,minimalist and has type safety.

This is very true. I really hate svelte single file components. But then I tried JSX for breaking things down. I love solid but I don't feel really good about angle brackets within C style syntax. I saw this Scala library that stick with simple statically typed function syntax than html tags. I don't understand why people still wants to stick with xml like tags. In laminar markup is written like this scala div( h1("Hello world", color := "red"), inputCaption, input(inputMods, name := "fullName"), div( ">>", button("Submit"), "<<" ) ) I wish solid team makes their HyperScript syntax as performant as JSX.

Laminar (Scala framework) hasn't been mentioned yet so dropping it here as an awesome framework that support HTML-over-the-wire. It can be used together with React, HTMX, and many other frontend frameworks -- but doesn't have to be.

https://laminar.dev/

Scala.js core itself, which I maintain, does not need much innovation. We support all of Scala, and interact with any JavaScript library. That's what the core promises.

If you want to compare to Scala 3, it's worth pointing out that you can use Scala.js with any Scala version >= 2.12.2. In particular, you can use it with Scala 3 and benefit from all its innovations. ;)

Innovation comes mainly from libraries, notably UI libraries. Laminar (https://laminar.dev/) is a great example.

In terms of roadmap, we are mostly working on "boring" stuff: improving performance (of the generated code, and of the linker), fixing bugs when they get reported, etc.

Perhaps, when Wasm gets more features for deeper interoperability with JavaScript (manipulating objects notably), we will take another look at targeting Wasm. People usually expect all languages to target Wasm now, "because it's fast". Truth is, it's fast for languages with linear memory. There is no evidence yet that it will be fast for memory-managed languages with objects and virtual dispatch.