"purescript without node" should use psc-package

[matthewleon]

https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/guides/PureScript-Without-Node.md

Not sure how others feel about this, but to me it simplifies Node-free development.

[hdgarrood]

Yes, definitely. That page is only like that because it predates psc-package.

[chexxor]

I'd prefer to decouple guides on dependency management tools and bundling tools from that "purescript without node" article. Would need to create those guides first, then can simplify that article. I imagine the simplified article would be like "Use tool X for dep management. See guide X. Use tool Y for bundling. See guide Y."

[hdgarrood]

If the purpose of the guide is to present a sensible workflow for purescript without node, then psc-package is definitely the right choice. We could certainly do with more docs around the compiler CLI, though, which discuss only the purs executable and don’t bring in other tools, but I think that’s a different thing.

[toraritte]

Would it be possible adding a demonstration on how to use PureScript with other JavaScript backends (e.g., deno)?

[nwolverson]

This could now instead/also refer to spago, I think the only node dependency is a runtime on for node-dependant commands (like run and test)

[thomashoneyman]

I don't think there's interest among the core team in maintaining psc-package, so I agree this should refer to Spago.