2 ms·
It sounds like bashing. Here's my unfinished, but working code, interfacing Google Apps Script to Purescript https://github.com/kika/purescript-google-appsscri
by kika 10y ago
It sounds like bashing.
Here's my unfinished, but working code, interfacing Google Apps Script to Purescript
https://github.com/kika/purescript-google-appsscript/tree/master/src/Google/AppsScript https://github.com/kika/purescript-google-appsscript/tree/ma...
Please tell me what is so _dead_ in it.
Though I'm pretty new to Purescript and to the Haskell world in general, it took me almost no effort to write this code once I figured out how Data.Function (renamed Data.Function.Uncurried in the latest Purescripts) works. Probably your issue with Purescript FFI was about not being aware of these helpers (which don't do much help per se, but remove ugly clutter of nested functions in JS code).
- gilmi 10y agoI also had a pleasant experience and didn't hit a dead end. I documented my experience here: http://gilmi.xyz/post/2016/05/09/ld35 http://gilmi.xyz/post/2016/05/09/ld35
- sjrd 10y agoI guess my comment qualifies as bashing. It still is what I think, though. Look at your own code from https://github.com/kika/purescript-google-appsscript/tree/master/src/Google/AppsScript https://github.com/kika/purescript-google-appsscript/tree/ma... There is more JS code than PureScript! Why? Because you need bridge JS code for pretty much every JS library you want to call. Which is precisely the point I make in the grand-parent: "For all these things, you have to write "bridge" JS code that exposes JS libraries in a way that PureScript is happy with."