In advance of the PureScript survey, I’d like to know if your company (yes, you!) uses PureScript. It doesn’t matter in what capacity - it could be company-wide, team wide in a team that does or doesn’t include you, or just for your or someone else’s personal contributions, even if they’re PoCs that don’t make it to production. It also counts if PureScript has been used in the past or if anyone is planning to use it in the future.
If you’re a consultant delivering PureScript-based projects for clients, I’d like to hear back from you as well.
Please note that this is not part of the survey proper: there will be plenty of questions about PureScript in industry when the survey lands on March 15. Rather, I’m asking this so that I can send the survey to places where PureScript is used in anger.
If you’d like to reply to this post but not publicly, please ping me on Discord at mikesol#4431 or email me at mike@meeshkan.com.
I’ll kick this off by saying that my company, Meeshkan, has used PureScript on and off and I will be sending the survey to myself and legions of employees past and present
We use PureScript pervasively at Arista Networks, with more than 100,000 lines of PureScript in production and several libraries from our team, which includes @natefaubion, @colinwahl, @thimoteus, @ajnsit, @JordanMartinez, and myself.
Guess a rather small fish/team: 3 developers (the company is actually not that small): We at Wiegand-Glas (germany) use PureScript in production and are looking forward to do so with more projects to come.
id3as is using purescript / purerl extensively, also on the order of 100k lines of code, pretty much all targeting erlang backend rather than javascript. We’ve had stuff live in production for around 4 years
Currently working at Quanterall and for a couple of months we’ve been implementing prototype and proof of concept projects in PureScript with purerl to supplement our BEAM work, while also using the JS output for frontend applications.
2 developers working on the PoCs, 8-10k lines (ish) total. For reasons mostly unrelated to PureScript it seems unlikely that further commitment is expected, though with the right interest it’s possible that it’d continue.
I work at Marquette Energy Analytics and we use PureScript for the frontend of our SaaS offering (with F# for the backend and most any code that gets run locally). 3 total developers working with PureScript including myself, with about 30k lines of PureScript code.
At CollegeVine we use PureScript for most of our UI, though not 100%. Our backend is Rails (I know, don’t ask), and the rough policy is to start with Rails/HAML for simple/dumb UIs, but as soon as it needs to be responsive or complex, we switch to PureScript. Though in practice, these days most people are heavily biased in favor of PureScript even from the start. We have a self-rolled binding that allows including PureScript components in HAML pages much the same way stylesheets or JS files are included - by simply specifying a path to the entry-point module. At the moment we have 142 separate bundles compiled out of a single PureScript codebase, which is about 127KLOC.
I’m the CTO of Panoramic Software in Irvine, CA and we are using PureScript in production and all new projects are going to be written in PureScript. We have 5 developers who write PureScript and will, in the next few months, be training 2 more developers who currently use Elm.
We wrote our backends in Haskell but will write new backends using PureScript when applicable.
We’re a small Web development shop near Waterloo, Ontario. Myself and two other developers use PureScript for two production applications, around 100K lines of PureScript code.
Also, they’re boring line of business applications with nothing maths-ish or fancy types-ish about them. When used correctly, PureScript is great for complex business logic.
