[ender7]

This article is just a recapitulation of the old pure functional programming vs. imperative programming argument but wrapped up in new packaging. Most of these issues, such as needing to validate types at codebase boundaries, functions that have side effects, and unsound static type systems, could just as easily be leveled at most imperative languages (C++, Java).

So yeah, go use a proper functional language (many of which compile to JS!). Complaining that an imperative language isn't a soundly-typed functional language is tautologically true I guess, but who cares?

[KirinDave]

It's not really, though. Because even pure FP folks read this article and say, "This is just nonsense and ill-considered propaganda."

For example, the idea that you can't trust Typescript because it might call untyped code but you CAN trust Purescript is just wrong. It's not even just wrong, it's utterly misrepresentative of what actually happens in Elm and Purescript. It's misinformation.

[uryga]

Could you elaborate? Why is it wrong/misinformation?