Ömer Sinan Ağacan | 11 Nov 20:28 2013
Picon

off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

Hi all,

Sorry for off-topic question, I'm asking this question here because as
Haskell community we invent lots of new Haskell-like(sometimes a
subset of Haskell like Fay, sometimes different languages with Haskell
syntax and Haskell-like features like Elm and recent language with row
polymorphic records -- I don't remember it's name) languages. What I'm
wondering is that js_of_ocaml project looks like solving all problems
we have. It's supports 100% of OCaml(it translates OCaml bytecode),
and OCaml is arguably better than all languages we invented(awesome
module system, records, strict by default, all OCaml libraries(except
FFI ones) work, like functional data structures, parser generators
etc.)

(I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)

So in short, I don't understand why use Haskell like compile-to-js
languages instead of js_of_ocaml (other than learning purposes -- JS
may be a nice high-level target language to practice writing compilers
etc.)

Please note that I'm not using any compile-to-js languages in my work,
so I may not be able to make a fair comparison, but to me all other
compile-to-js langauges look worse after seeing js_of_ocaml. Of
course, if I had a JS backend for GHC(which would mean compiling
Haskell to JS with all extensions) it would be best solution, but for
now I think js_of_ocaml is superior to all other solutions.

I'm wondering your opinions about this.

(Continue reading)

Charlie Paul | 11 Nov 20:31 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

(I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)
You would be somewhat mistaken. Just beware of compiling huge packages with it.


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Sorry for off-topic question, I'm asking this question here because as
Haskell community we invent lots of new Haskell-like(sometimes a
subset of Haskell like Fay, sometimes different languages with Haskell
syntax and Haskell-like features like Elm and recent language with row
polymorphic records -- I don't remember it's name) languages. What I'm
wondering is that js_of_ocaml project looks like solving all problems
we have. It's supports 100% of OCaml(it translates OCaml bytecode),
and OCaml is arguably better than all languages we invented(awesome
module system, records, strict by default, all OCaml libraries(except
FFI ones) work, like functional data structures, parser generators
etc.)

(I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)

So in short, I don't understand why use Haskell like compile-to-js
languages instead of js_of_ocaml (other than learning purposes -- JS
may be a nice high-level target language to practice writing compilers
etc.)

Please note that I'm not using any compile-to-js languages in my work,
so I may not be able to make a fair comparison, but to me all other
compile-to-js langauges look worse after seeing js_of_ocaml. Of
course, if I had a JS backend for GHC(which would mean compiling
Haskell to JS with all extensions) it would be best solution, but for
now I think js_of_ocaml is superior to all other solutions.

I'm wondering your opinions about this.

Thanks,

---
Ömer Sinan Ağacan
http://osa1.net
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Ömer Sinan Ağacan | 11 Nov 20:32 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?

---
Ömer Sinan Ağacan
http://osa1.net

2013/11/11 Charlie Paul <charlieap <at> gmail.com>:
>> (I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)
>
> You would be somewhat mistaken. Just beware of compiling huge packages with
> it.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry for off-topic question, I'm asking this question here because as
>> Haskell community we invent lots of new Haskell-like(sometimes a
>> subset of Haskell like Fay, sometimes different languages with Haskell
>> syntax and Haskell-like features like Elm and recent language with row
>> polymorphic records -- I don't remember it's name) languages. What I'm
>> wondering is that js_of_ocaml project looks like solving all problems
>> we have. It's supports 100% of OCaml(it translates OCaml bytecode),
>> and OCaml is arguably better than all languages we invented(awesome
>> module system, records, strict by default, all OCaml libraries(except
>> FFI ones) work, like functional data structures, parser generators
>> etc.)
>>
>> (I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)
>>
>> So in short, I don't understand why use Haskell like compile-to-js
>> languages instead of js_of_ocaml (other than learning purposes -- JS
>> may be a nice high-level target language to practice writing compilers
>> etc.)
>>
>> Please note that I'm not using any compile-to-js languages in my work,
>> so I may not be able to make a fair comparison, but to me all other
>> compile-to-js langauges look worse after seeing js_of_ocaml. Of
>> course, if I had a JS backend for GHC(which would mean compiling
>> Haskell to JS with all extensions) it would be best solution, but for
>> now I think js_of_ocaml is superior to all other solutions.
>>
>> I'm wondering your opinions about this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ---
>> Ömer Sinan Ağacan
>> http://osa1.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
Charlie Paul | 11 Nov 20:33 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

I tried it about a month ago, and the vagrant install method was easy and straightforward, if slow. They plan to cabalize it as well.


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?

---
Ömer Sinan Ağacan
http://osa1.net


2013/11/11 Charlie Paul <charlieap <at> gmail.com>:
>> (I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)
>
> You would be somewhat mistaken. Just beware of compiling huge packages with
> it.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry for off-topic question, I'm asking this question here because as
>> Haskell community we invent lots of new Haskell-like(sometimes a
>> subset of Haskell like Fay, sometimes different languages with Haskell
>> syntax and Haskell-like features like Elm and recent language with row
>> polymorphic records -- I don't remember it's name) languages. What I'm
>> wondering is that js_of_ocaml project looks like solving all problems
>> we have. It's supports 100% of OCaml(it translates OCaml bytecode),
>> and OCaml is arguably better than all languages we invented(awesome
>> module system, records, strict by default, all OCaml libraries(except
>> FFI ones) work, like functional data structures, parser generators
>> etc.)
>>
>> (I'm assuming we won't have JS backend for GHC anytime soon)
>>
>> So in short, I don't understand why use Haskell like compile-to-js
>> languages instead of js_of_ocaml (other than learning purposes -- JS
>> may be a nice high-level target language to practice writing compilers
>> etc.)
>>
>> Please note that I'm not using any compile-to-js languages in my work,
>> so I may not be able to make a fair comparison, but to me all other
>> compile-to-js langauges look worse after seeing js_of_ocaml. Of
>> course, if I had a JS backend for GHC(which would mean compiling
>> Haskell to JS with all extensions) it would be best solution, but for
>> now I think js_of_ocaml is superior to all other solutions.
>>
>> I'm wondering your opinions about this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ---
>> Ömer Sinan Ağacan
>> http://osa1.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Brandon Allbery | 11 Nov 20:37 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?

The biggest bump in usability will come from it not being just in HEAD with everything about building it that that implies. (next release of GHC will have it)

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b <at> gmail.com                                  ballbery <at> sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Carter Schonwald | 11 Nov 20:39 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

yup! i'm very excited about GHCJS once the 7.8 GHC lands :) 


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?

The biggest bump in usability will come from it not being just in HEAD with everything about building it that that implies. (next release of GHC will have it)

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b <at> gmail.com                                  ballbery <at> sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Jeremy Shaw | 12 Nov 18:24 2013

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
> not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?

Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
though.

- jeremy
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 12 Nov 18:38 2013

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
> not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?

Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
though.

As far as I know, that's correct.

The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant setup: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Ömer Sinan Ağacan | 12 Nov 21:24 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and
similar languages?

---
Ömer Sinan Ağacan
http://osa1.net

2013/11/12 Patrick Mylund Nielsen <haskell <at> patrickmylund.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
>> > not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?
>>
>> Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
>> contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
>> then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
>> though.
>
>
> As far as I know, that's correct.
>
> The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant
> setup:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun
Carter Schonwald | 12 Nov 21:33 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

thats up to the users :) 

that said, having full ghc haskell to target JS will be pretty amazing :) 


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and
similar languages?

---
Ömer Sinan Ağacan
http://osa1.net


2013/11/12 Patrick Mylund Nielsen <haskell <at> patrickmylund.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
>> > not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?
>>
>> Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
>> contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
>> then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
>> though.
>
>
> As far as I know, that's correct.
>
> The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant
> setup:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Mark Lentczner | 12 Nov 23:38 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and similar languages?

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald <at> gmail.com> wrote:
that said, having full ghc haskell to target JS will be pretty amazing :) 
 
I think the biggest determiner, by far, is ease of integration and deployment. Integration means things like how can I use this with a web page, full other other bits in JS (like google analytics, and FB plug-ins), and access jQuery. Deployment means things like how easily I can edit, and then see that code run in situ. These things, more than language completeness, will determine what succeeds.  (viz. PHP!)

- Mark
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Anton Nikishaev | 13 Nov 14:56 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> writes:

> That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and
> similar languages?

GHCJS's Hello World is 2.1M worth of javascript (well, that's how it was
several month ago, maybe it's better now?). And even google closure
compiled with advanced optimizations it's ~500K.

Fay's output is 5K after google-closure-mumbo-jumbo.

> 2013/11/12 Patrick Mylund Nielsen <haskell <at> patrickmylund.com>:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
>>> > not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?
>>>
>>> Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
>>> contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
>>> then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
>>> though.
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, that's correct.
>>
>> The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant
>> setup:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun

--

-- 
lelf

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Aycan iRiCAN | 13 Nov 15:18 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

church% hastec --version
0.2.9

church% cat > Hello.hs
module Main where
main = print "Hello world."

church% hastec --opt-google-closure --start=asap Hello.hs
Compiling Main into .
Linking Hello.js
Linking Main
Linking GHC.IO.Handle.Text
Linking Haste.Handle
Linking GHC.Tuple
Linking GHC.Types
Linking GHC.Show
Linking GHC.List
Linking GHC.Base
Linking GHC.IO
Running the Google Closure compiler on Hello.js...

church% nodejs Hello.js
"Hello world."


Hello.js 5750 Bytes (46746 bytes without google closure).



On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Anton Nikishaev <me <at> lelf.lu> wrote:
Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> writes:

> That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and
> similar languages?

GHCJS's Hello World is 2.1M worth of javascript (well, that's how it was
several month ago, maybe it's better now?). And even google closure
compiled with advanced optimizations it's ~500K.

Fay's output is 5K after google-closure-mumbo-jumbo.



> 2013/11/12 Patrick Mylund Nielsen <haskell <at> patrickmylund.com>:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it was
>>> > not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?
>>>
>>> Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
>>> contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
>>> then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
>>> though.
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, that's correct.
>>
>> The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant
>> setup:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun

--
lelf


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



--
http://www.google.com/profiles/iricanaycan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Ömer Sinan Ağacan | 13 Nov 21:18 2013
Picon

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

Anyone tried this same test on GHCJS?

---
Ömer Sinan Ağacan
http://osa1.net

2013/11/13 Aycan iRiCAN <iricanaycan <at> gmail.com>:
> church% hastec --version
> 0.2.9
>
> church% cat > Hello.hs
> module Main where
> main = print "Hello world."
>
> church% hastec --opt-google-closure --start=asap Hello.hs
> Compiling Main into .
> Linking Hello.js
> Linking Main
> Linking GHC.IO.Handle.Text
> Linking Haste.Handle
> Linking GHC.Tuple
> Linking GHC.Types
> Linking GHC.Show
> Linking GHC.List
> Linking GHC.Base
> Linking GHC.IO
> Running the Google Closure compiler on Hello.js...
>
> church% nodejs Hello.js
> "Hello world."
>
>
> Hello.js 5750 Bytes (46746 bytes without google closure).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Anton Nikishaev <me <at> lelf.lu> wrote:
>>
>> Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and
>> > similar languages?
>>
>> GHCJS's Hello World is 2.1M worth of javascript (well, that's how it was
>> several month ago, maybe it's better now?). And even google closure
>> compiled with advanced optimizations it's ~500K.
>>
>> Fay's output is 5K after google-closure-mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 2013/11/12 Patrick Mylund Nielsen <haskell <at> patrickmylund.com>:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan
>> >>> <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it
>> >>> > was
>> >>> > not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?
>> >>>
>> >>> Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
>> >>> contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
>> >>> then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
>> >>> though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As far as I know, that's correct.
>> >>
>> >> The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant
>> >> setup:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun
>>
>> --
>> lelf
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.google.com/profiles/iricanaycan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 13 Nov 21:22 2013

Re: off-topic question: why invent new Haskell-like compile-to-js functional languages when we have awesome js_of_ocaml ?

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone tried this same test on GHCJS?
 
I'm definitely interested in seeing the same, but for a recent version of GHCJS, too.

Personally, I think Fay is great, size- and API-wise for when what you're making is a "script." When you're making a big/real application, I prefer a more complete API, and I find that the initial payload size is negligible in these cases.
 
2013/11/13 Aycan iRiCAN <iricanaycan <at> gmail.com>:
> church% hastec --version
> 0.2.9
>
> church% cat > Hello.hs
> module Main where
> main = print "Hello world."
>
> church% hastec --opt-google-closure --start=asap Hello.hs
> Compiling Main into .
> Linking Hello.js
> Linking Main
> Linking GHC.IO.Handle.Text
> Linking Haste.Handle
> Linking GHC.Tuple
> Linking GHC.Types
> Linking GHC.Show
> Linking GHC.List
> Linking GHC.Base
> Linking GHC.IO
> Running the Google Closure compiler on Hello.js...
>
> church% nodejs Hello.js
> "Hello world."
>
>
> Hello.js 5750 Bytes (46746 bytes without google closure).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Anton Nikishaev <me <at> lelf.lu> wrote:
>>
>> Ömer Sinan Ağacan <omeragacan <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > That's great news. I wonder if that means it'll be end for Fay and
>> > similar languages?
>>
>> GHCJS's Hello World is 2.1M worth of javascript (well, that's how it was
>> several month ago, maybe it's better now?). And even google closure
>> compiled with advanced optimizations it's ~500K.
>>
>> Fay's output is 5K after google-closure-mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 2013/11/12 Patrick Mylund Nielsen <haskell <at> patrickmylund.com>:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy <at> n-heptane.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan
>> >>> <omeragacan <at> gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > I'm aware of this, but when I first tried it a few months ago, it
>> >>> > was
>> >>> > not easy to use at all. Is it changed now?
>> >>>
>> >>> Last I heard, Luite was waiting for GHC 7.8 to be released because it
>> >>> contains changes that will allow him to upload ghcjs to hackage and
>> >>> then you will be able to just cabal install it. I could be wrong
>> >>> though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As far as I know, that's correct.
>> >>
>> >> The easiest way to install and use it right now is using their Vagrant
>> >> setup:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1fvv5q/ghcjs_introduction_concurrent_haskell_in_the/caeifun
>>
>> --
>> lelf
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.google.com/profiles/iricanaycan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Gmane