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

Wasm_of_OCaml

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#21

Post by l_dopa »

Athas wrote: post #9

Sorry in advance for bikeshedding. This is a cool project and the name is clearly derived from js_of_ocaml, but does anyone know why js_of_ocaml ended up with such an awkward name in the first place? I am vaguely familiar with the "x_of_y" naming scheme in OCaml (which I also find awkward, but perhaps it sounds better in French) - is that the only reason? I can't find any discussion online, so maybe I'm really the on…

I always assumed this convention was just using "of" in the same sense as function composition. From wikipedia:

> The notation g ∘ f is read as "g of f "...

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#22

Post by baby »

Athas wrote: post #9

Sorry in advance for bikeshedding. This is a cool project and the name is clearly derived from js_of_ocaml, but does anyone know why js_of_ocaml ended up with such an awkward name in the first place? I am vaguely familiar with the "x_of_y" naming scheme in OCaml (which I also find awkward, but perhaps it sounds better in French) - is that the only reason? I can't find any discussion online, so maybe I'm really the on…

I believe this is because in French you tend to say "x of y".

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#23

Post by IshKebab »

esrauch wrote: post #16
tome wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a great convention. It means you write i = int_of_string s where the "i" is next to the "int" and the "s" is next to the "string". i = string_to_int s just looks backwards to me.

The topic here isn't so much the order but whether "of" in int_of_string matches a common/typical usage of the word. From the other comments sounds like its local style for OCaml maybe because of some French lineage, but that "int_of_string" is a function that converts a string into an int was definitely not something that I would have assumed (as opposed to 'int_from_string' or something).

It doesn't sound especially weird to me and I'm not French.

It's just "[create an] int [out] of [a] string"

"from" would have made more sense.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#24

Post by esrauch »

IshKebab wrote: post #23
esrauch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic here isn't so much the order but whether "of" in int_of_string matches a common/typical usage of the word. From the other comments sounds like its local style for OCaml maybe because of some French lineage, but that "int_of_string" is a function that converts a string into an int was definitely not something that I would have assumed (as opposed to 'int_from_string' or something).

It doesn't sound especially weird to me and I'm not French. It's just "[create an] int [out] of [a] string" "from" would have made more sense.

The words in brackets are doing all of the heavy lifting in your example though: "Of" without "out of" means "constituted by". If in isolation I saw "array_of_string" I'd definitely parse that as somehow being about str[], not "f(str) -> char[]"

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#25

Post by pbiggar »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #3

On this subject, a question. Has anybody done this with F#? To have F# compile to WASM instead of .NET. Thus have a F# program able to execute on WASM without needing .NET.

Yes. Darklang was originally in OCaml using js_of_ocaml, and we ported it to F# using Blazor (https://github.com/darklang/dark/tree/main/backend/src/Wasm). It works.

We found that in dotnet 6, the code was much slower, with long startup times and a much bigger download, than in js_of_ocaml. It also had a lot of issues in running in a Webworker, which wasn't the case for js_of_ocaml.

In dotnet 7, the webworker issues are better and AOT is easier, so startup is faster. Download sizes are still bad, and it's still slower than js_of_ocaml.

However, dotnet allows almost any code to run in WASM, which js_of_ocaml had large limitations. This meant a decent chunk of functionality had to be worked around to make separate js vs native targets, which also was a massive pain and took a long time. Dune's virtual targets wasn't ready at the time - I think we were one of the test cases for it.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#26

Post by hajile »

progval wrote: post #18
Athas wrote: post #9

Sorry in advance for bikeshedding. This is a cool project and the name is clearly derived from js_of_ocaml, but does anyone know why js_of_ocaml ended up with such an awkward name in the first place? I am vaguely familiar with the "x_of_y" naming scheme in OCaml (which I also find awkward, but perhaps it sounds better in French) - is that the only reason? I can't find any discussion online, so maybe I'm really the on…

I am French, but I feel this matches definitions 2a and 3 on https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of : * "used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation, eg. a man of noble birth" (js code comes from ocaml code) * "used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents, eg. throne of gold / cup of water" (js application made of ocaml code)

"Cup of water" isn't a great example because it would imply then cup was made from water. This makes more sense when you realize "cup of water" is lazy speech for "cup full of water".

"of" usually implies a state of being while "from" implies a transformation.

"JS of Ocaml" implies that the JS is Ocaml, but that's not true as it is transformed. "JS from Ocaml" would be more accurate.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#27

Post by tome »

esrauch wrote: post #16
tome wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a great convention. It means you write i = int_of_string s where the "i" is next to the "int" and the "s" is next to the "string". i = string_to_int s just looks backwards to me.

The topic here isn't so much the order but whether "of" in int_of_string matches a common/typical usage of the word. From the other comments sounds like its local style for OCaml maybe because of some French lineage, but that "int_of_string" is a function that converts a string into an int was definitely not something that I would have assumed (as opposed to 'int_from_string' or something).

Well, if the word order is the most important aspect (as it is to me) then you have to think of another word you can use instead of "of". I know that in my early Haskell programming I was writing `intOfString` where other Haskellers wrote `stringToInt`. I'm a native English speaker so it certainly had nothing to do with French! "Of" just seemed to fit naturally there. Do you think "From" or some other English word would be more natural?

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#28

Post by marcosdumay »

tome wrote: post #27
esrauch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic here isn't so much the order but whether "of" in int_of_string matches a common/typical usage of the word. From the other comments sounds like its local style for OCaml maybe because of some French lineage, but that "int_of_string" is a function that converts a string into an int was definitely not something that I would have assumed (as opposed to 'int_from_string' or something).

Well, if the word order is the most important aspect (as it is to me) then you have to think of another word you can use instead of "of". I know that in my early Haskell programming I was writing `intOfString` where other Haskellers wrote `stringToInt`. I'm a native English speaker so it certainly had nothing to do with French! "Of" just seemed to fit naturally there. Do you think "From" or some other English word wo…

The Haskell culture clearly dictates "i = fromString s".

And as a consequence, Rust has it standardized as "i = from s".

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#29

Post by c54 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #17
nequo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume it also has a connection to how algebraic data types are written in OCaml. For example, the equivalent of Haskell's `Maybe` and Rust's `Option` is type 'a option = None | Some of 'a So calling this project "WASM of OCaml" is one way of saying that it "wraps" OCaml code in WASM.

Right but why do they use "of" in that way for type declarations? Ends up being the same answer: it's a reasonable translation from french for a non-native english speaker.

It's fairly colloquial english to say you have "some of something", I think this matches the ocaml language convention pretty nicely

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#30

Post by Tommah »

Athas wrote: post #9

Sorry in advance for bikeshedding. This is a cool project and the name is clearly derived from js_of_ocaml, but does anyone know why js_of_ocaml ended up with such an awkward name in the first place? I am vaguely familiar with the "x_of_y" naming scheme in OCaml (which I also find awkward, but perhaps it sounds better in French) - is that the only reason? I can't find any discussion online, so maybe I'm really the on…

It is named like the _of_ functions, yes. "Of" and "from" are both "de" in French. A native English speaker would use "from" there, but whoever named those functions used "of."
Post reply on HN