I think ClojureScript's growth won't be impacted. Those folks do their own thing. There's a lot of innovative stuff in that community. Particularly fascinating watching the alternative approach to building good software by intentionally pursuing means other than static typing. That said, I tend to be on the static side of spectrum. There's a good amount of overlap between Reason and Elm. Elm may have a wider scope, is built for apps specifically, which I love. On the other hand, Reason is OCaml and OCaml is OCaml, which is great. Exciting times.
Nope I meant wider, with respect to what responsibilities they take on. Elm does more stuff. It's a language and framework/architecture for building apps. Reason is just a language, though with a more powerful type system, which perhaps is what you meant. Unlike Elm, it's meant to be paired with React or other frameworks to get the job done. It has a narrower scope because it does less stuff.
Elm has limited itself only to the scope of building applications in the browser; therefore, it's scope is much narrower. A general purpose language aims to be ergonomic for most use cases, which means supporting constructs that may not be necessary for e.g. front end development, but may be a huge quality of life enhancer for server side applications, hardware, etc.
It needs to be powerful and flexible enough to allow things like React or other frameworks to be built in it. Elm has only the Elm way, nothing more.
Perhaps scope wasn't the right word. I think we agree. If Reason is to be considered a general purpose language, then Elm is DSL for web apps. In that domain, it tries to be all you need, which is what my context of scope was. Reason is more suitable for probably all other domains.
