5 ms·
So they've changed yet another piece of core, defining OCaml syntax (the lack of C-parens everywhere) for the worse, obfuscating currying in the process. But th
by ubertaco 9y ago
So they've changed yet another piece of core, defining OCaml syntax (the lack of C-parens everywhere) for the worse, obfuscating currying in the process. But that's just my opinion, I guess. I don't have to use it.
I do find it ironic that in their announcement, they don't even try to defend the decision, but instead say, effectively, "if you don't like this change, you're just bikeshedding", and "if you don't care about syntax, great!" Given that the entire purpose of Reason is one giant bikeshed about OCaml syntax, this reads as hypocritical.
They also say, effectively, "no complaining in public allowed, just PM us (so we don't have to have a real conversation and we can ignore you)", so you know they're great at working with their community.
- k__ 9y agoI don't know. If the main goal of Reason is to get a OCaml that is easy to use for JS devs, they nailed it. I'm a JavaScript developer and I think the new version is easier to grasp. Also, the Reason peeps are really nice and some of them are on a team of a FB product and not on the "Reason team", which gives them more insight of the day-to-day JavaScript problems, so I don't think they just do their thing and don't want any complains. As far as I know Reason compiles to OCaml and back again, so there is probably no big barrier in using stuff written in Reason with OCaml, if you like that language more. I even read about a few devs who started with Reason and switched to OCaml later.
- agumonkey 9y agoI'd let it slip because it will probably move a massive amount of devs into the static reasoning mindset. You lose a bit in the process but the gain is still worth it.
- cwillis3 9y agoI don't know. One may be forced to write this silly dialect instead of real OCaml in a couple of years "because Facebook".
- trishume 9y agoFWIW I did PM @jordwalke and got a very satisfying answer: this change has dramatically increased the number of JS devs that want to use Reason when they see it. It’s not that they are just guessing, they’ve actually tested this within Facebook and found a huge difference in adoption.
- weberc2 9y agoKudos for acknowledging that you don't have to use this project, but the rest of your post reads like a tantrum. Notably, public complaining wasn't forbidden, as you claim, they insinuated that they wouldn't engage public complaints. Further, you seem to fail to understand that the goal of Reason is to make OCaml more familiar to mainstream developers, not to existing OCAML developers. Unless you wanted to communicate a deep emotional attachment to OCaml's syntax, this post could be improved by simply saying what you dislike about Reason's direction and leaving it at that.
- anonc10 9y agoI don't read it as a tantrum. It is an accurate description of the attitude that prevails in SOME Silicon Valley corporations: 1) Take an existing valuable codebase and add some personal touch. 2) Promote the heck out of it. 3) Slowly, people associate all the goodness with said company and the "new" codebase. 4) Tell critics to take a hike.
- scottmf 9y agoThat’s a very unfair assumption. In my (admittedly short) time on the ReasonML Discord I’ve found chenglou and other members of the Reason team to be incredibly helpful and involved with the community.
- rtfeldman 9y agoThis is uncharitable and needlessly mean-spirited. If you disagree with this change, you can say that without ascribing bad intentions to open source maintainers whose contributions you apparently don't want to use anyway.
- chenglou 9y agoI've given an answer to currying at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573956