5 ms·
Go is such a strange choice of language for this kind of thing compared to something in the ML family.
by rienbdj 7y ago
Go is such a strange choice of language for this kind of thing compared to something in the ML family.
- earthboundkid 7y agoYes, think of all the great tools written in Haskell, like pandoc and uh… a second example someone will reply to me with that no one has ever fucking heard of.
- throwaway8941 7y agoNah, the second one is also pretty popular. https://www.shellcheck.net https://www.shellcheck.net
- earthboundkid 7y agoWell, I can say I have heard of it. It still strikes me as a pretty much trivial tool compared to the bazillion things written in Rust and Go in the last five years, but it’s better than nothing.
- kroltan 7y agoWay to get overly salty. ML is not just Haskell, there is OCaml and F# as other notable dialects. (and to a much more limited extent, Rust, which borrows a few features but is otherwise more traditionally C-like) The language family lends itself very well for writing data transformation, especially tree processing (of which most parsers require), which is a very common kind of operation when writing minifiers and syntax transformers.
- earthboundkid 7y agoI agree that syntax transformations are in the wheelhouse of ML-family languages, but this just makes the absence of any popular tools besides pandoc more striking.
- kroltan 7y agoWell, the Haxe compiler is written in OCaml! But yes, I do agree that the ML family is pretty barren, at least in terms of publicly-available software. It is, perhaps, the "functional programming" of functional programming! (as in, FP is already a couple orders of magnitude less popular than OOP/procedural, ML is definitely less popular than, say, Lisp)
- scns 7y agoA bundler written in OCaml: https://github.com/fastpack/fastpack/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/fastpack/fastpack/blob/master/README.md