Skip to content
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.

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

[Question] Guidance about the purescript tool set chain #64

Open
PierreR opened this issue Oct 18, 2017 · 9 comments
Open

[Question] Guidance about the purescript tool set chain #64

PierreR opened this issue Oct 18, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

@PierreR
Copy link

PierreR commented Oct 18, 2017

My understanding so far is that psc-package is meant to replace bower . On the other hand pulp is still useful. Is that correct ? Is it possible to use psc-package together with purs without requiring a third tool ?

PureScript by Example does not mention psc-package at all and would suggest the use of bower to tackle dependencies. Does it mean that psc-package is not ready for broad user consumption yet ?

At this point, I have found the psc-package story quite confusing. What seems to be missing is a section about simple usage patterns. I have managed to build a project with psc-package but it is still unclear to me if I should bundle using purs or pulp.

Thanks for your help.

@PierreR
Copy link
Author

PierreR commented Oct 18, 2017

I have found out that one thing that works well is the combo pulp & psc-package. I don't know if this is the idiomatic way but if it is would you be open to a PR that add the mention of pulp in the README ?

@kritzcreek
Copy link
Member

I think pulp already supports psc-package according to https://github.com/purescript-contrib/pulp#dependency-management.

@PierreR
Copy link
Author

PierreR commented Oct 18, 2017

@kritzcreek Yep it does and it works pretty well for me so far. I am just saying that if I knew I had to use psc-package together with pulp it would have save me hours of troubleshooting. Somehow the fact that one of the goal of the project is to remove the need of node has been a source of confusion as well (as I then assume pulp + psc-package was not the way to go).

Anyhow mentioning pulp on the README or some other directions about how psc-package is meant to be used with other tools seems like a good idea.

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Oct 18, 2017

You don't need to use Pulp, but a documentation fix to mention it briefly would be a good idea, yes.

@PierreR
Copy link
Author

PierreR commented Oct 19, 2017

@paf31 What would be the replacement for pulp build -O --to output.js in a psc-package setting without pulp ?

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Oct 20, 2017

You would use psc-package build followed by purs-bundle on the output.

Rembane pushed a commit to Rembane/psc-package that referenced this issue May 26, 2018
* add signal

* add mathbox
@arrowd
Copy link

arrowd commented Sep 22, 2019

How do I use purs-bundle on the output? I tried psc-package sources | xargs purs bundle, but that didn't work. Why there is no psc-package bundle in the first place?

@JordanMartinez
Copy link

@arrowd You should probably be using spago instead of psc-package. spago more or less succeeds psc-package (see purescript/spago#423). Then, you could use spago bundle-app or spago bundle-module depending on what you want to do.

As for your question, I don't know because I don't use that tool anymore.

@arrowd
Copy link

arrowd commented Sep 23, 2019

@JordanMartinez Thanks for the pointer, I'll try this out.

It would be nice, BTW, if psc-package or spago would be mentioned in https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/guides/PureScript-Without-Node.md

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants