Hacker News Reader

Comment by alharith | Hacker News Reader

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/

View on HN

Or just about any sexp-based languages. Implementing a basic -> clojure threading macro is simple. Placeholder arguments are simple as well.

And Elm & Purescript.

And F# directly with Fable

or WebSharper

...or Blazor

Can'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 :).

As long as you don't use Elm

Them's fighting words. I think Elm and F# have the most readable syntax of the ML languages I've encountered thus far.

The 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 ctrl-f "vmchale"

For 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 |>

Wow, 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.

Sure. 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.

Or OCaml with js_of_ocaml.

Or OCaml with BuckleScript

Reply on news.ycombinator.com