3 ms·

I want to write my front end and back end in the same language - Reason - and compile the backend to native code. So, ReScript doesn’t work for me? Are people s

by jitl 6y ago

I want to write my front end and back end in the same language - Reason - and compile the backend to native code. So, ReScript doesn’t work for me? Are people still using or working on Reason, or is it dead? I feel like this fork might make sense inside Bloomberg, but it’s killed my enthusiasm for this language family.

merlinsbrain 6y ago
Theoretically, ReScript will support ReasonML syntax, and theoretically ReasonML can still be used for native development. The messaging isn't clear on ReasonML's future at ALL though. Is it essentially deprecated until the full switch to ReScript happens? The Rescript FAQ mentions changes will be additive in supporting ReasonML, and they will track new features to OCaml, but will they track new features to Reason? Will anyone actively develop Reason anymore?
- spyder81 6y ago
  ReasonML is, as it has always been, a 100% syntax map to OCaml. It will always be that, but moving forward it will be nothing more than that. Compiling future ReasonML versions to JS will require js_of_ocaml. The success of BuckleScript meant that a _lot_ of people used what they thought was ReasonML but it was really ReasonML+BuckleScript. This lead to a ton of confusion the moment newcomers realised they needed a second website to look up APIs. ReScript includes a snapshot version of ReasonML for backwards compatibility, but it will never be upgraded. The future of ReasonML is likely slow and steady progress, potentially fading into obscurity as the target audience is now very small (OCaml developers who don't like OCaml syntax).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spyder81 6y ago
You might have been able to use the same syntax before, but writing code for Reason native was already very different to writing Reason+BuckleScript for the browser. This just formalises the split. To write the same code for both front and back end js_of_ocaml has been the standard since long before Reason came along, and it works just fine with Reason native.
testcross 6y ago
actually bucklescript has never really been used at bloomberg. And bob left bloomberg a long time ago. So this fork is definitely not happening because of bloomberg. To have code that you can compile to both native and js, the easiest thing is to stick to the ocaml syntax. It is supported by all the versions of the compiler (rescript or ocaml). And to also use the ocaml syntax for the tools doing code generation, such as atdgen.
davesnx 6y ago
That's very doable, but tedious to make and it's probably on of the selling points for Reason. Writting React code with OCaml is very tedious.

by jitl 6y ago

merlinsbrain 6y ago

Theoretically, ReScript will support ReasonML syntax, and theoretically ReasonML can still be used for native development. The messaging isn't clear on ReasonML's future at ALL though. Is it essentially deprecated until the full switch to ReScript happens? The Rescript FAQ mentions changes will be additive in supporting ReasonML, and they will track new features to OCaml, but will they track new features to Reason? Will anyone actively develop Reason anymore?

spyder81 6y ago
ReasonML is, as it has always been, a 100% syntax map to OCaml. It will always be that, but moving forward it will be nothing more than that. Compiling future ReasonML versions to JS will require js_of_ocaml. The success of BuckleScript meant that a _lot_ of people used what they thought was ReasonML but it was really ReasonML+BuckleScript. This lead to a ton of confusion the moment newcomers realised they needed a second website to look up APIs. ReScript includes a snapshot version of ReasonML for backwards compatibility, but it will never be upgraded. The future of ReasonML is likely slow and steady progress, potentially fading into obscurity as the target audience is now very small (OCaml developers who don't like OCaml syntax).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

spyder81 6y ago

You might have been able to use the same syntax before, but writing code for Reason native was already very different to writing Reason+BuckleScript for the browser. This just formalises the split. To write the same code for both front and back end js_of_ocaml has been the standard since long before Reason came along, and it works just fine with Reason native.

testcross 6y ago

actually bucklescript has never really been used at bloomberg. And bob left bloomberg a long time ago. So this fork is definitely not happening because of bloomberg. To have code that you can compile to both native and js, the easiest thing is to stick to the ocaml syntax. It is supported by all the versions of the compiler (rescript or ocaml). And to also use the ocaml syntax for the tools doing code generation, such as atdgen.

davesnx 6y ago

That's very doable, but tedious to make and it's probably on of the selling points for Reason. Writting React code with OCaml is very tedious.