servant VS Elm

> do you really have to understand language extensions?

You do when your code doesn't compile and you're trying to figure out what the error message means, or when the library you want to use makes heavy use of it for even basic functionality.

> These days one just enables GHC2021

My experience was pre-GHC2021. I basically had to enable at a minimum 5-6 language extensions in every single file.

> Mostly they're just about removing unnecessary restrictions from the older standard.

Yeah, those ones are usually fine. I have zero objection to things like FlexibleInstances or DeriveFoldable.

> Could you give an example?

I believe I was trying to implement Central Authentication Service using Servant. However, that required returning a custom HTTP status code. There has been an open Github issue for this since 2017, but it seems to require basically rewriting the entire framework: https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/732

Looking back at it now Servant does have "ServerError", but that basically requires giving up all the advantages Servant claims to have and I believe it was not a viable option at the time. Looking at the timeline I was probably also on Servant 0.15, and there seems to have been a rewrite since then.

I vaguely recall running into a similar issue trying to interact with a database, but I can't remember the details of that.

a HasSwagger instance for NamedRoutes was added in May 2022 (in this commit) but there hasn't been a package release since March

If you don't like this style, the usual alternative is to change mkDualAuthHandler to take two additional arguments, Proxy tag0 and Proxy tag1 (as e.g. lots of Servant functions do, for historical reasons).

Dunno if this is helpful, but I found this github issue about ResourceT and servant https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/1345

And what about the cabal repl --with-compiler=doctest, which was added recently, in doctest v0.20? I recently submitted a PR for Servant to use this in place of GHC environment files, because it seems less finicky to me. Was this a bad idea?

I asked a somewhat relevant question recently. Maybe you'll find this discussion somewhat helpful: https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/1547; two packages were talked about. One of the folks from Well Typed replied, and said they tried it recently (and worked fine).

You are highly encouraged to test this release out and let us know what you think ! For bug reports, features requests or any kind of feedback, just open a ticket on our issue tracker.

Even slower than :<|> quadratic compile time in number of routes?

Check this out https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/335#issuecomment-172300487

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/