If you're interested in Gren, you might also like Roc — roc-lang.org. It's a definite descendent of Elm too, although not a fork: the compiler is written in Rust, the platforms (a fascinating and powerful concept) in Rust and Zig.
I had a hunch reading the home page that Gren and Elm were related. This is confirmed by this page:<p><a href="https://gren-lang.org/book/appendix/faq/#what-are-the-differences-between-gren-and-elm" rel="nofollow">https://gren-lang.org/book/appendix/faq/#what-are-the-differ...</a><p>IMHO it should be more prominent on the hope page or the elevator pitch.
This (Gren), Elm (what Gren is based off), PureScript (more full featured: has Haskell's type classes), Gleam (targets both on BEAM and the browser) -- all really good attempts to fix the JavaScript problem.<p><a href="https://wiki.haskell.org/The_JavaScript_Problem#The_problem" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.haskell.org/The_JavaScript_Problem#The_problem</a>
How does Green plan to distinguish itself from OCaml given that you can transpile OCaml to JS and run it in Node today?<p>(I’m a big fan of MLs so this is a genuine question!)
I like the explanation why it is simple. In reality people won't like this because they like something like '+' to mean more things. Look at how rapidly people get 'upset' with OCaml because '+' and '+.' etc. Seems Gren does not go that far, but does not allow + for strings or any conversion (although + is for floats?).
I’ve asked this somewhere before, but didn’t get an answer. Are there plans for Gren to:<p>1. Improve FFI (aka Elm Kernel for everyone)
2. Support Self hosted packages
3. Implement LSP for better IDE integration?<p>Im cautiously optimistic about Gren, and hopefully some of these concerns can be addressed.
This looks like a fun language to learn if you have the time, I prefer the syntax Vs Go.
I have a concern that as with most new new languages adoption and commercial support affects the uptake, a chicken and egg scenario.
Early days at 0.4 but what are the future plans?