So out of all the compile-to-javascript languages out there, elm is easily my favorite, despite not being usable outside the browser. This article is one illustration why it is so attractive: app architecture that is blindingly simple (its all just state machines under the cover, which is exactly what a UI is).

Now all we need is an elm that compiles to native code that somehow can do what React Native is doing for the native interface. I would easily pay 3-5x Xamarin's prices to be able to do so. Who's up for it?

I, too, really love Elm, and have worked on some tooling for getting it running on the server. (Self promotion ahead). I wrote an NPM module for compiling and loading Elm[1], and also put together a more comprehensive project for scaffolding an Express application to communicate between Elm in the browser and Elm on the server, via ports (this is the first time I announce it anywhere, since I want to have some full examples before anything "official", but it is usable today).

1. https://www.npmjs.com/package/elm-loader

2. https://www.npmjs.com/package/elm-expressway

Interesting. So basically Reactive Haskell right inside the NodeJS.

Did you able to run any performance test yet? I'm interested to learn more about this.

It performs perfectly fine on my machine, but I have not done any comprehensive testing. I was actually quite surprised when I first got everything working and was streaming input to the server, state to the client, and rendering the latter without any obvious latency. There are even some trivial optimizations, such as dropping repeats from the state signal on the server, which should speed things up significantly. I have no idea if it will scale, but I do plan on adding some infrastructure for writing bots in Elm and having them run in a cluster, so it should be easy enough to test at some point.

This is a working example of the Pong example from the Elm website: https://github.com/sonnym/elm-expressway_pong

It's killing me that there isn't a good enough solution to this right now.

Some quick notes:

[0] Idris compiles to C, Java, and JavaScript, but is considered experimental.

[1] Frege compiles to Java, and seems to have fairly nice Java interop. It may be possible to target iOS via RoboVM [2], and the browser via GWT [3].

I've yet to really dig into either of them yet, so I can't claim any level of confidence.

My current best hope is that GHC's ARM support will become mature enough someday before Sol goes supernova. (Or at least before the effective heat-death of the universe.)

(I'm still learning Haskell and kin, so I can't be of much help yet.)

[0] http://idris-lang.org

[1] http://frege-lang.org (appears to be down ATM)

[2] http://www.robovm.com

[3] http://www.gwtproject.org

It is http://www.frege-lang.org or simply https://github.com/Frege/frege

I haven't tried Elm yet but my favourite thus far is ClojureScript. Last I used it the workflow had a few rough edges but once I discovered you didn't HAVE to create closure(the google closure stuff) mappings it became easier to get the feet wet.

I should take Elm for a drive.

Haskell with an FRP library may work for what you want to do. Reactive-banana looks good, though I haven't used it.

The trouble though comes about once you have to start working with a UI library. It's a mess and a half unless you use C++. I'd like to try using Elm, or Purescript for UI work using atom-shell or nw.js. That opens almost the same can of worms (how easy it might be to 'bind' your engine to your UI/view). I've written a non-trivial application using QtWebkit entirely for the UI and it was a very agreeable experience. The engine of this app was C++ but it got my gears turning.

Actually that I my opinion from any web based UI, a mess of JavaScript/CSS trickery and HTML.

Native UI development feels so much more advanced and user friendly.

Saying this as a UX developer since the mid-90's.

My comment was in reference to using native toolkits from a language other than C++ and not the status of using native toolkits in general. <friendly-joke>I have a hard time believing that you've been using native UI toolkits using Haskell since the mid-90s.</friendly-joke> :)

No, but I was using Turbo Pascal followed by Delphi. Also played with C++ Builder, but by then Visual C++ had taken over as Borland was going through their Inprise phase.

I'll echo this. Elm was a bit of a gateway drug for me getting into Haskell. Haskell itself has a lot of very powerful tools.

This post builds the intuition for something like the Netwire library

http://blog.jle.im/entry/effectful-recursive-real-world-auto...

I've been thinking of giving Elm a go, and this walk-through is very helpful in breaking the initial barrier. Exciting to see these ideas finally giving us answers on how to do user interfaces on the web right.

ReactJS has also converged into the ideas proposed by Elm: the Model is explicitly defined (props and state); view is always a function of the Model; and the Model is mutated only through Signals (one-way bound callbacks in plain React, Actions when using Flux).

I have a question for anyone who've worked with both Elm and React. It seems to me that these ideas (component model, well-defined mutation point for state, composability, one-way binding etc.) are what matters more than the language itself. Granted that the language can influence how code is written (immutability, pure functions, ..), but does Elm (or ClojureScript for that matter), drastically improve creation of typical user interfaces just by virtue of the language?

When there was no React.js, I had in mind something like that and implemented a very simple concept like this with ghcjs. Functional languages tend to let you write this kind of code.

It felt very organized and just worked, then I looked at Elm and said: "that's exactly what I thought I'd do with ghcjs". Then with react.js: "finally somebody implemented the concept in plain javascript". Which is after all a kind of stricter mvc model for the single-page web applications. The fact is that with an haskell-like language, the kind of mvc concept is much more structured, you do less design mistakes because the language itself constraints the effects. So what react.js did is adding these constraints on top of plain js in an elegant way.

In other words: I think the addition of elm is the language itself, for those acquainted with haskell and where type checking matters a lot, compared to plain js.

On the same path, there are other libs similar to react.js that are even faster because they have stricter requirements on how data is mutated.

Thanks a lot for the response. Your comment about constraints improving design makes a lot of sense.

As to libs similar to React, I assume you're talking about Mercury and Mithrill. But I'm quite happy with React's performance and escape latches (shouldComponentUpdate). I'll however switch in a heartbeat if a better design comes along.

The problem is that unlike when I was mutating DOM with spaghetti JS or wrangling with Angular, I am yet to say "why is this thing so darn difficult" with React for almost all use cases I've thrown at it (yet to figure out animations). And the last React.js Conf has taken care of most things that I could imagine improving in web development with Relay and CSS in JS.

I think the core ideas can be used in many settings, that is true. One can use a pattern like this in C if they want. I think there are a couple questions to consider when asking "how does language really help?"

1. How much is the language going to help you independently arrive at nice architecture? It took millions of people 20 years to arrive at this pattern in JS, and it literally happens in every Elm program out there automatically. The pattern described in "The Elm Architecture" really does come from looking at people's Elm code and seeing the naturally arising patterns. So new people don't need to read this post and learn these concepts, commercial users don't need to have strict discipline, the architecture just comes out this way.

2. How much is the language going to fight you or help you when you already know what you want to do? In particular, ADTs are a key part of why this is so nice in Elm, and when you are working in JS or TypeScript, writing "the same code" leads to code that can be quite awful. Even when you know why you want it, it often does not seem worthwhile to fake ADTs. Immutability is another key aspect that's hard to get in many languages. I'll write more about this in some future post, but I think lack of side-effects is another key aspect of keeping the architecture nice.

3. How much is a language going to help a team of 20 keep this up in a large code base? Will the intern or the new hire be able to do it right? Once you start to get cracks, do they continue to grow? If you lack a module system or a type system, are you going to start running into other scaling problems? In this setting, having tools that guide you to the right answer is extremely valuable.

So I think language matters a lot, but I would :P

Thank you wheatBread for taking the time to respond.

I appreciate the practical lens with which you've described how the language can influence code. Many language geeks far too often remain too abstract about how a craftsman programmer's life can be improved by the language's design.

ADTs stood out as something I'd love to have in my day-to-do programming toolbet during my short tryst with Haskell. But I was unable to articulate the concrete improvements it can bring into my code, and so it has unfortunately remained a hunch. I eagerly look forward to your post about ADT in the context of Elm and UI programming.

My experience with Elm was that it's very elegant and fun to work with if you are building a purely clientside application, but once you need communication with server the APIs are not very well developed and it becomes a major headache.

Note that none of the examples in this page (or in any Elm tutorial I found) flesh out interaction with a backend.

Promises are going to solve this problem in an elegant way, expect it in next major release.

That said, I've release a client/server game (online sailing regattas) in Elm & Play/Scala with websockets, and current API was enough for me: https://github.com/etaque/tacks

Consuming data isn't hard. Creating a dashboard that displays the values sent down on an interval over a websocket is super easy.

Sending data isn't hard. Sending the mouse coordinates on a click to the server over a websocket is super easy.

There is, however, no easy way to consume data and send a response. To write an echo server, for example, you currently have to send the data to a javascript port and then read from the port to send it back.

I ended up implementing this in JavaScript using Rx, but the core concept is the same:

    Incoming requests:     --a------------->
    Requests to server:    ---b------------>
    Responses from server: -----------d---->
    Updates to app state:  ---c--------e--->

a - User "sends message" to chat room

b - Handler for that action queues a request

c - Handler for that action also queues a local update

d - Server responds with the sent message

e - Handler for that response queues a local update

Yep, it was specifically when I wanted an application that would run a game loop involving round trips to the backend for every step that I ran into a lot of difficulty. Ports were not very clearly documented and I didn't find any examples, so I wound up writing Javascript instead.

It this problem bad enough that you would consider it to be a deal breaker? Can't one shell out to JS for the pain points?

You can do stuff in JS really easily with [ports](http://elm-lang.org/learn/Ports.elm).

The TodoMVC example in Elm does this to use localStorage: https://github.com/evancz/elm-todomvc/blob/master/Todo.elm#L... and https://github.com/evancz/elm-todomvc/blob/master/index.html...

The same can be done for HTTP or WebSockets if you have needs that are not met by the existing APIs. Furthermore, the next major release is focused on drastically improving these APIs.

So there's a safety valve right now and there's a plan of how to make things excellent. I would not block on this, but I am also relatively biased :)

I have read the document and find the ideas around Elm really interesting. It seems nicely designed and is also understandable for a newcomer in FP.

Some things that would interest me but which I couldn't figure out from these docs are:

1. Will sending something to a Channel or the DOM event that causes the send to the channel (e.g. onClick (send channel Decrement) in the example) be executed synchronously (aka direct function calls in the transpiled JS) or asynchronously (signal processing in the subscriber is deferred, e.g. with settimeout). If it's deferred, can it really be guaranteed that for example a button could only be pressed once (with direct calls you could disable it immediatly in the onClick listener) or other actions which you might want to see immediatly?

2. Are there any concepts around cancellation? E.g. in one other example there was a textbox whose text-changed signal triggered the downloading of images which were shown in another view. There old pictures were still shown despite the input has changed already again because they are in the HTTP response signal at some point of time. I guess you would have to create and map a new HTTP signal each time the input change and disconnect the old one. But this seems like against the proposed architecture.

It all looks great, but I wonder what happens when my model is actually a large database (or, for example, a large map), and the visual components are each observing changes in this database (or map). Would the database be one big signal? Or would the database be a large collection of signals? How would one model this (efficiently) in elm?

I wonder if it is also possible in elm to perform layout-dependent logic. For example: show a piece of text horizontally, but if it is too wide (in pixels), show it vertically.

I've programmed COBOL for a living back when it was still fashionable and I don't think it looks like COBOL at all, what specifically triggers your 'looks like' bit?

The separate sections for data definitions, forms, etc.

Ah, the 'divisions'. Right, I see what you mean. Quite a few languages have such 'divisions', though they're not usually explicit. For instance, C code usually has a bunch of include statements at the top, followed by internal structure declarations followed by function definitions.

We don't name the sections there but they might as well have names (you can include a file in the middle of another but that's pretty bad form). Other languages are more formal (for instance Modula-2, Erlang, Ada). That's not a COBOL specific thing.

Those are just simple examples. If the code grows you can always split up the sections into different modules.