jordwalke

24 ms·

1. 61.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   They're not different than OCaml's, but Reason's JSX is an interesting / useful application of labeled arguments that appeals to React developers.
2. 62.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   Also, if you're looking to help out, the biggest area of impact is to help us unify the install/development process for both native ocaml development and web frontends. That means building a single workflow that allows you to crea
3. 63.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   The most common (constructive) feedback we currently receive is that once people want to dive into some advanced stuff, they need more material than the brief tutorials, and the primary book is written in OCaml syntax / toolchain. I wo
4. 64.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   The feedback we've gotten from web developers is that it's easier to learn, and the integration that we've done for web makes it much easier to be instantly productive. Many say they would have not even taken a look at OCaml
5. 65.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   Hi, thanks for your interest. You can check out the development here: https://github.com/chenglou/reason-react-example Cheng also gave a talk at ReactConf about our efforts. Things are still quite in flux, but you&#x27
6. 66.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   Hi I'm Jordan and I work on Reason( http://facebook.github.io/reason ), and previously worked on ReactJS( https://facebook.github.io/react/ ), so this touches on a lot of things that are of interest t
7. 67.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   Hi, I'm one of the contributors to ReLayout. I originally worked on ReactJS, and ReactNative which made use of Yoga (then, css-layout), and now I'm working on Reason and ReLayout (which is a port of Yoga to Reason). I definitely w
8. 68.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   Sander sent a [Pull Request]( https://github.com/facebook/reason/pull/647 ) to [Reason]( http://facebook.github.io/reason/ ) which adds JSX syntax (which many React developers have found hel
9. 69.▲
   by jordwalke 10y ago

   To start, we have "fixed" type parameter application syntax. (Most people see this as a win and now matches Haskell IIRC). Some have requested ability for type annotation ayntax to be above the value it annotates.
10. 70.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    I'm impressed at how little bike shedding has actually occurred for people that are helping out. I suspect it's because we know we aren't heavily locked in, and we can automatically upgrade to the new version of the syntax. I
11. 71.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    You don't know of any other languages that use `mod` to represent "module"? Say, perhaps, the one you just advocated for in another thread? And there are in fact issues with using x => y syntax for lambdas without a lead
12. 72.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    I think you're taking my lightheartedness far too seriously. Fwiw, I would be just as happy to have `fn` represent lambdas if enough people felt similarly. We're certainly receptive to feedback which is one of the reasons why we&#
13. 73.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    It doesn't have to be three letters, keywords can be odd numbers and achieve a similar effect - also, we likely will use the `mod` keyword instead of `module` fwiw.
14. 74.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Since the original link was missing some context: Reason's goal is to make a great new "interface" to a language that is already great. Reason currently fixes the most widely cited issues with OCaml's syntax, while curat
15. 75.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    I stand by my bike shed :D https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11718769
16. 76.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Except when you're in the top level - in which case you don't use `in`. Oh, and don't forget all the nuance of interleaving imperative commands. I'm an experienced OCaml dev and this trips me up (the "ml compared&qu
17. 77.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Glad to hear it! We've also tossed around the idea of having a precompiled standard lib come with it upon installation. We're certainly not looking to increase the number of standard libraries, when there's already so many
18. 78.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    > In OCaml they are not first class, that is, you can't pass the as arguments, or partially apply them. That's why it makes sense for the declaration to look like a tuple, and the use to look like a function applied to a tuple-
19. 79.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    When we start talking about syntax coloring, you know we're just one step closer to actually debating the color of a literal bike-shed! Jokes aside, what would your highlighting do in this case?
20. 80.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    In 2016, "marketing to JavaScript programmers" is pretty much the same thing as "marketing to programmers". Providing context that the vast majority of programmers will understand is helpful regardless of the compilation
21. 81.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Yes, I'd describe it as being "non-invasive". It means we get the benefit of literally every feature implemented in the core of the language (multicore, F-lambda, modular implicits, ppx attributes), but can decouple the proce
22. 82.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    "As many warts as OCaml's syntax has, for the most part I actually like it." This is for those people who do not like OCaml because of those warts. If you are one who is already sold on OCaml, it's very easy to forget ho
23. 83.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    I personally think that JavaScript is one of the most meaningful and important languages that exists today. This needn't imply that JavaScript's syntax, or its semantics are to be emulated (though we're seeing a bunch of welc
24. 84.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Thanks for the feedback. We can change it to `Cons`, but I was assuming that anyone who knew what `Cons` was, would know what `List` meant, but not everyone who understood what `List` meant, would know/recall what `Cons` meant.
25. 85.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    > other languages in common use now have it as an assignment operator (even if it is still a source of bugs a la: "if(a=0) ...")). Which with OCaml, is not an issue thanks to the decent type system! I agree with you - there is
26. 86.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Thanks stuartaxelowen, the feedback is actually really valuable one way or another.
27. 87.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    I suspect the syntax of `<-` (or lack thereof) will be a common topic of discussion. Let's see how various audiences respond to this change and then discuss if we'd like to restore `<-` for mutation. Personally, I don't
28. 88.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Jordan here (I work on Reason): I agree with you but one benefit of `fun` is that it aligns better with multiples of two spaces. It's important when lists end up wrapping: /* Nice multiple of two spaces */ fun myFun
29. 89.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    It turns out it was the drop shadows, and only were an issue in Firefox. I don't know what to make of the fact that we can run Unreal but we can't render drop shadows performantly. Maybe we should build web pages using WebGL.
30. 90.▲
    by jordwalke 10y ago

    Thanks for the (many) reports! It's been fixed for a while. No excuse for poor performance!