4 ms·
There's also ReasonML for those looking to scratch the itch sooner. Also, don't be turned off by the sea of comments. Pick one, they are all great. but yes ML
by alharith 7y ago
There's also ReasonML for those looking to scratch the itch sooner.
Also, don't be turned off by the sea of comments. Pick one, they are all great. but yes ML language enthusiasts can be a bit overenthusiastic, but I don't fault them for that. They are all anxious to spread the gospel of ML. The Reason community on discord is excellent, one of the best I have had the pleasure to be a part of.
I didn't go with straight OCaml with js_of_ocaml because I wanted a better representation of what I was doing in JS land. There is an excellent write-up about it here: https://www.javierchavarri.com/js_of_ocaml-and-bucklescript/ https://www.javierchavarri.com/js_of_ocaml-and-bucklescript/
- hopia 7y agoAnd Elm & Purescript.
- aloisdg 7y agoAnd F# directly with Fable
- websharper 7y agoor WebSharper ...or Blazor
- KurtMueller 7y agoCan't us ML language enthusiasts just all get along? We're all aware of how vastly superior ML languages are for domain modeling and language readability :).
- toolz 7y agothat's like, just your opinion man
- vmchale 7y agoAs long as you don't use Elm
- KurtMueller 7y agoThem's fighting words. I think Elm and F# have the most readable syntax of the ML languages I've encountered thus far.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoThe person you're responding to has it out for Elm. I recognize their username from an Elm thread where they spent their afternoon hating on it with punchlines like "it's designed for stupid people" and "nobody can take Elm seriously." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17842400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17842400 ctrl-f "vmchale"
- weavie 7y agoFor the record, this doesn't exist in PureScript by default (the default is the symbol `#`, which I don't find as pleasing on the eye). You need to define it: import Data.Function as F infixl 1 F.applyFlipped as |>
- gavinray 7y agoWow, Purescript lets you define new operators and specify their type? (I assume infixl 1 is infix-left, what is the 1 for though) That is really cool. I wish Haskell & Purescript weren't so difficult to grok, trying them has been on my todo-list for ages but they're so different than any other language.
- weavie 7y agoSure. You are basically specifying operators as aliases for functions, so all these are equivalent: F.applyFlipped blah rhubarb blah `F.applyFlipped` rhubarb blah |> rhubarb (|>) blah rhubarb The number (1) is the precedence, so if you have multiple operators in a statement it knows how to group them.
- bjoli 7y agoOr just about any sexp-based languages. Implementing a basic -> clojure threading macro is simple. Placeholder arguments are simple as well.
- LeonidasXIV 7y agoOr OCaml with js_of_ocaml.
- dna_polymerase 7y agoOr OCaml with BuckleScript