Hacker News Reader

Comment by frou_dh | Hacker News Reader

Can't all of this be sidestepped and just write standard (non-forked) OCaml and feed its bytecode through Js_of_ocaml https://ocsigen.org/js_of_ocaml/ ?

That might not have the ultimate React integration (guess that's the answer to the question). But on the other hand probably aligns better with the instinct of many developers to reduce (albeit not eliminate) levels of unnecessary layering.

View on HN

js_of_ocaml and ReScript (BuckleScript) have different goals. js_of_ocaml is optimized for working with existing OCaml libraries. ReScript is optimized for working with the JS ecosystem. That's my understanding at least as someone who has only worked in native OCaml and BuckleScript, but hasn't touched js_of_ocaml.

Yeah, and js_of_ocaml seems like a more reliable solution, since it uses the normal OCaml compiler and just translates the bytecode.

I don't see any reason good React integration couldn't have been built on top of js_of_ocaml.

The whole BuckleScript/Reason project seems like it just made the whole ecosystem messier for very little gain.

BuckleScript (now ReScript, I guess) can still compile standard OCaml syntax.

AFAIK it's a forked compiler and already a number of language versions behind the mainline one.

Yes but OCaml 4.06 is still OCaml.

Agreed, but apparently some people take issue with OCaml syntax so they come up with stuff like this.

From my point of view these are all interesting endeavors to watch from my shovel store, and in 10 years they all be stuck in maintenance projects, porting back to JavaScript.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com