Hacker News Reader

Comment by hopia | Hacker News Reader

And Elm & Purescript.

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"

And F# directly with Fable

or WebSharper

...or Blazor

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com