> If Java is a general purpose language (can't be used for systems without translation due to the JVM), then so is anything-which-compiles-to-JS.
Fair point. I guess my thinking here is that PureScript is unlikely to replace Haskell. It is possible, but I think there are a few reasons that probably won't happen. The first is that it's mission statement "PureScript is a small strongly typed programming language that compiles to JavaScript" points it in the wrong direction. Maybe Javascript is the counter to this, but that feels like an anomaly. Second is that it is way behind Haskell in terms of infrastructure, ecosystem, and a lot of core language/compiler features that enable general purpose programming. Could swarms of people come in and change this? Sure. But if they did, it seems to me that PureScript is similar enough to Haskell that people could just switch to Haskell and avoid that work.
> Until you can 'get work done' without the equivalent of graduate-level math classes
This is a big misconception that is demonstrably untrue. I know many people who have developed a solid working grasp of monads without doing graduate-level math.
> Second is that it is way behind Haskell in terms of infrastructure, ecosystem, and a lot of core language/compiler features that enable general purpose programming.
No, it's way ahead because it's based on Javascript, and javascript is having umpty-billion libraries developed for it right now. Of course that's not actually a good thing at the moment but they'll settle down at some peoint.
> This is a big misconception that is demonstrably untrue. I know many people who have developed a solid working grasp of monads without doing graduate-level math.
Ref my reply to Mr. Church, but it's not just monads - you never stop running into category theory if you're using Haskell, it's baked in.
If someone without any knowledge of category theory rewrote the language, that statement might become true (though I'd be skeptical they'd get it right), but as of right now, you need to know category theory to understand the language and it's base libraries.
I know, I've struggled with it for a long time - every time I have a problem, I have to go back and reteach myself category theory to understand it.
Fair point. I guess my thinking here is that PureScript is unlikely to replace Haskell. It is possible, but I think there are a few reasons that probably won't happen. The first is that it's mission statement "PureScript is a small strongly typed programming language that compiles to JavaScript" points it in the wrong direction. Maybe Javascript is the counter to this, but that feels like an anomaly. Second is that it is way behind Haskell in terms of infrastructure, ecosystem, and a lot of core language/compiler features that enable general purpose programming. Could swarms of people come in and change this? Sure. But if they did, it seems to me that PureScript is similar enough to Haskell that people could just switch to Haskell and avoid that work.
> Until you can 'get work done' without the equivalent of graduate-level math classes
This is a big misconception that is demonstrably untrue. I know many people who have developed a solid working grasp of monads without doing graduate-level math.