search

alexmingoia / purescript-pux

Build type-safe web apps with PureScript.
https://www.purescript-pux.org
Other
565 stars 76 forks source link

Compare Pux to other options in PureScript land #67

Open cies opened 8 years ago

cies commented 8 years ago

Options like:

I have a hard time to choose between them, a highlevel overview of what sets them apart would be awesome!

megamaddu commented 8 years ago

Here's a short summary

purescript-react

purescript-thermite

purescript-halogen

purescript-pux

purescript-elm

Is that what you're looking for?

cies commented 8 years ago

Wow. Yes, and thanks very much!

I'd put this straight into the readme :), very informative.

On Sep 13, 2016 18:26, "Michael Trotter" notifications@github.com wrote:

Here's a really short summary purescript-react

  • a PS wrapper around React's API
  • no opinions
  • React API is actually pretty complex and stateful, so purescript-react can get pretty complicated
  • more boilerplate -- you'd likely start to build up your own abstraction over it if you used it directly
  • written by Phil, the original PS creator

purescript-thermite

  • a higher-level wrapper around purescript-react
  • uses lenses (Phil's profunctor lens library)
  • some really cool ideas but can be pretty hard to understand if you don't know lenses well
  • a thermite app builds one react component, so you might use thermite and purescript-react in combination for a complete, multi-component app
  • also written by Phil

purescript-halogen

  • not a React wrapper -- uses virtual-dom
  • might someday abstract the vdom implementation so you can use it over React too (maybe)
  • most complicated (but probably also the most type-safe)
  • used in production by Slamdata

purescript-pux

  • simplest of the React wrappers (one of the reasons it isn't built on purescript-react)
  • pre-17 Elm architecture
  • relatively easy to import regular React components
  • you can also export Pux apps and use them within JS React applications
  • excluding the previous two bullets, a Pux app consists of one component with a large render function, using the elm architecture and signals instead of setState
  • probably the most opinionated in terms of app architecture (though still flexible if you step into JS FFI)

purescript-elm

  • port of Elm's libraries and concepts to PS
  • still a work in progress (it was really close and then Elm 17 was released; not sure if it's caught up yet)
  • the end goal is to be able to take an Elm app, tweak the syntax a bit where necessary (: -> ::, record updates, etc) and have a working PS

Is that what you're looking for?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/alexmingoia/purescript-pux/issues/67#issuecomment-246739889, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAh9glJiQSbFuQhkpDAJdTcB9CfIAU7ks5qps6UgaJpZM4J7dgA .

cies commented 8 years ago

For purescript-halogen you say:

most complicated (but probably also the most type-safe)

I think that it could use better wording. Maybe "advanced" instead of "complicated" fits better. Here some code examples from the implementation of a todo app using both libs:

The code is functionally very similar, but in the Halogen case it is quite a bit simpler on the eyes (easier types and less data massaging needed).