2 ms·

> the code base becomes unidiomatic, Idiomatic describes the common practices of the ecosystem, without the features (specifically currying, since it's the onl

• toastal 3y ago
  Idiomatic JavaScript doesn’t use currying. If you add it to your code base, you are now siloing your project to folks that understand currying which has two problems: 1) hiring Joe Schmo to add/maintain will be harder 2) folks that understand currying will almost certainly be more happy & productive in a language that has currying by default & is idiomatic. For instance, the audience that sees fp-ts as a necessary, useful library to code in a manner they find most appropriate will find JavaScript/TypeScript ergonomics verbose, hard to read, and require someone with functional programming experience (see the verbosity according to their docs of TypeScript+fp-ts vs. PureScript: https://gcanti.github.io/fp-ts/guides/purescript.html https://gcanti.github.io/fp-ts/guides/purescript.html). That audience would be better suited doing compiled option such as the aforementioned PureScript, or js_of_ocaml, ReScript, derw, Idris, GHC.js/whatever the new GHC compiler JS output is, or similar option. These languages will have the idioms of fp-ts without the heavy reliance on singularly library most of the TypeScript community doesn’t understand that bloats their code bases without requiring the safety (someone can just call .value on a Maybe/Option breaking the safety). (This is not a knock against fp-ts which is a marvel in & of itself, but the audience doesn’t line up with the idioms of the average TypeScript project).