Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

andreas.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#21

Post by lilactown »

noncoml wrote: post #13
quicksnap wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is that Reason's syntax is simpler and more enjoyable to use. I simultaneously learned both OCaml and ReasonML syntaxes and find Reason to be much easier to work with. Perhaps people in Reason core will chime in with a more detailed answer. Here's some official information: https://reasonml.github.io/guide/ocaml/

Yeah, I guess the complaint comes from a guy that was already familiar with OCaml's syntax. I guess if you don't know OCaml, maybe the Reason syntax is more appealing.

I do miss a lot of the parentheses-less-ness of OCaml (and the old Reason syntax), but I'm honestly a lot more comfortable at least broaching the topic of using it on some work projects now that it's more JavaScript-y.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#22

Post by jordwest »

noncoml wrote: post #13
quicksnap wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is that Reason's syntax is simpler and more enjoyable to use. I simultaneously learned both OCaml and ReasonML syntaxes and find Reason to be much easier to work with. Perhaps people in Reason core will chime in with a more detailed answer. Here's some official information: https://reasonml.github.io/guide/ocaml/

Yeah, I guess the complaint comes from a guy that was already familiar with OCaml's syntax. I guess if you don't know OCaml, maybe the Reason syntax is more appealing.

I learnt Reason syntax first, then OCaml second. I prefer the OCaml syntax, it seems simpler, cleaner, and doesn’t hide the nice things about the language behind JavaScript semantics.

The biggest example I can think of is that OCaml uses let..in, which reminds you that every function is a statement. By contrast, the `;` in Reason hides that fact.

That said, it was the Reason syntax that first brought me to the ecosystem, and I think it’s going to be the catalyst that makes OCaml a big player in front end.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#23

Post by jordwest »

kcorbitt wrote: post #4

If ReasonML is able to form a real community, I have high hopes for its long-term prospects. Such an enjoyable language to use! I think their general approach of bootstrapping a community by lowering impedance with the JS ecosystem is a decent one. In case anyone on the OCaml team is reading this though, there are two language-level changes that I think could do wonders for wider adoption. The first is modular implic…

You might like to try Fable and F#. I’ve been looking at it since playing with Reason and Bucklescript, and so far I’ve found Fable much easier to use and more featureful. The syntax is essentially the same as OCaml, plus it’s whitespace aware.

F# has implicit `+` for basic types (though it’s not quite modular implicits). It also has a really nice syntax for async computations, similar to `async/await`. JS interop is much easier too. It can also run on the server with .NET core if you don’t want to use node.

The output JS is slighter heavier and less optimised than Reason/Bucklescript, and compile times slighter slower, but at the moment those are trade offs I’m happy to make

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#24

Post by overtowed »

kcorbitt wrote: post #4

If ReasonML is able to form a real community, I have high hopes for its long-term prospects. Such an enjoyable language to use! I think their general approach of bootstrapping a community by lowering impedance with the JS ecosystem is a decent one. In case anyone on the OCaml team is reading this though, there are two language-level changes that I think could do wonders for wider adoption. The first is modular implic…

I'm a JS developer who tried to adopt Reason for a full stack side project in September. There is so much to love about the language and ecosystem. After about a week I decided to start over in TypeScript for a single reason: the awkward interop with promises compared to async/await, which is now available in evergreen browsers and Node 8 without compiling down. I'll definitely try again once this is ready.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#25

Post by masklinn »

StreamBright wrote: post #15
kcorbitt wrote: post #4

If ReasonML is able to form a real community, I have high hopes for its long-term prospects. Such an enjoyable language to use! I think their general approach of bootstrapping a community by lowering impedance with the JS ecosystem is a decent one. In case anyone on the OCaml team is reading this though, there are two language-level changes that I think could do wonders for wider adoption. The first is modular implic…

I think the exact opposite. Finally a language where floats and integers cannot be mixed together accidentally.

Haskell does not allow accidentally mixing floats and integers together. In fact it doesn't even allow mixing finite and infinite-precision integers together, despite using the same operator for all number additions:

    Prelude> (3::Int) + (4::Integer)

    :2:13:
        Couldn't match expected type ‘Int’ with actual type ‘Integer’
        In the second argument of ‘(+)’, namely ‘(4 :: Integer)’
        In the expression: (3 :: Int) + (4 :: Integer)
        In an equation for ‘it’: it = (3 :: Int) + (4 :: Integer)
It's not by any means the only language with that property either.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#26

Post by k__ »

ch4s3 wrote: post #14
k__ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many devs know stuff with C/Java/JavaScript like syntax.

Yeah, for better or worse that's ort of the default. I think ML syntax is fine, and in some cases great. However very few CS programs seem to teach MLs and AFAICT no bootcamps do so these languages tend to get picked up by dedicated autodidacts and academics. ReasonML might be a nice bridge,

I used LiveScript until ES2015 was a thing and found ML syntax rather nice.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#27

Post by s4vi0r »

k__ wrote: post #9
kcorbitt wrote: post #4

If ReasonML is able to form a real community, I have high hopes for its long-term prospects. Such an enjoyable language to use! I think their general approach of bootstrapping a community by lowering impedance with the JS ecosystem is a decent one. In case anyone on the OCaml team is reading this though, there are two language-level changes that I think could do wonders for wider adoption. The first is modular implic…

I think the problem isn't that + +. and ^ look different, it's that they are symbols. That's also what makes scala so unapproachable, you get stuff like ++> or =*= that doesn't make any sense. x + y makes sense to most people x ^ y not so much

Do you write Scala, or have you even looked at Scala code any time in the past few years? I'm curious where this habit of spreading FUD over Scala being operator heavy came from. Maybe it was back when it first started reaching the HN front-page or something?

Scala is a super approachable language, without any (that I can think of) strange operators in the stdlib. You could make a case for Cats, I guess, but writing purely functional Scala isn't necessary at all, and is something you can approach when or if you feel comfortable to do so.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#28

Post by habitat_mike »

rawrmaan wrote: post #20

If you're interested in typed APIs, also check out RESTyped: https://github.com/rawrmaan/restyped It's an end-to-end way to type check REST API calls and responses using TypeScript.

We're using restyped over at habitat in production - makes API integrations a breeze!

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#29

Post by nozzlegear »

jordwest wrote: post #23
kcorbitt wrote: post #4

If ReasonML is able to form a real community, I have high hopes for its long-term prospects. Such an enjoyable language to use! I think their general approach of bootstrapping a community by lowering impedance with the JS ecosystem is a decent one. In case anyone on the OCaml team is reading this though, there are two language-level changes that I think could do wonders for wider adoption. The first is modular implic…

You might like to try Fable and F#. I’ve been looking at it since playing with Reason and Bucklescript, and so far I’ve found Fable much easier to use and more featureful. The syntax is essentially the same as OCaml, plus it’s whitespace aware. F# has implicit `+` for basic types (though it’s not quite modular implicits). It also has a really nice syntax for async computations, similar to `async/await`. JS interop is…

I'll second the recommendation for F# and Fable. I'm currently working on my first project with it, where both the client and the server run F# and can share code/types. I haven't been this happy with a stack in a long while. My one complaint is how... salty some members of the F# community can be, mostly regarding the rest of the Microsoft-backed .NET ecosystem.

Re: Type-safe GraphQL with OCaml

#30

Post by kornish »

StreamBright wrote: post #16
aaron-lebo wrote: post #2

I wish OCaml had the libraries and community of Go or Rust, I think it'd be the most useful all-around language out there.

What exactly are you talking about? OCaml has decent libraries for almost everything that you want to do. What exactly are you missing?

"decent" and "almost" are generous, and it's completely realistic to say that Go, Java, Python, and Ruby's ecosystems far outshine OCaml's.

Love it as a language, but the ecosystem and community have a ways to go before even slightly widespread adoption.

Post reply on HN