Skip to content

Tooling and framework updates #8

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Tooling and framework updates #8

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -400,9 +400,9 @@ If this doesn't make sense, don't worry, you'll figure it out with some practice

Yeah Purescript still uses Bower, but honestly, it's not that big of a deal. It actually works quite well and I don't see it as being any worse/better than npm or another package manager. It just downloads stuff, it's fast and has a global cache, that's all I care about.

If you *really* don't want to use it, check out [psc-package](https://github.com/purescript/psc-package) and [package-sets](https://github.com/purescript/package-sets). They are more akin to the way Stackage in the Haskell world works. Basically a package-set is a list of package versions that are guaranteed to work well together, so as long as you stick to using the packages defined in a specific set, you're good to go because you won't have conflicts among your dependencies. I haven't tried it yet, and I think it is still sort of an experimental thing, but might become standard in the future.
Another popular alternative is [spago](https://github.com/purescript/spago), which uses [psc-package](https://github.com/purescript/psc-package) and [package-sets](https://github.com/purescript/package-sets). They are more akin to the way Stackage in the Haskell world works. Basically a package-set is a list of package versions that are guaranteed to work well together, so as long as you stick to using the packages defined in a specific set, you're good to go because you won't have conflicts among your dependencies.

This post has a lot of good info as well: [Setting up PureScript in March 2018](https://qiita.com/kimagure/items/570e6f2bbce5b4724564)
This thread has a lot of good info as well: [Recommended tooling for PureScript applications in 2019](https://discourse.purescript.org/t/recommended-tooling-for-purescript-applications-in-2019/948)

Don't feel bad for using Bower. It's fine.

Expand All @@ -412,3 +412,5 @@ Don't feel bad for using Bower. It's fine.
It's possible to get a pretty solid Elmish architecture in Purescript today! The library I like the most is [purescript-spork](https://github.com/natefaubion/purescript-spork). You should take a look at the examples (ported from https://guide.elm-lang.org/) and see for yourself.

Samples applications are available in the [elm-architecture](elm-architecture) folder of this repo.

Of course, you also have the freedom to use a component-based architecture such as [halogen](https://github.com/purescript-halogen/purescript-halogen) or [react-basic-hooks](https://github.com/spicydonuts/purescript-react-basic-hooks).