241–250 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both garbage collected languages and rust offer memory safety, rust just trades better performance for a more complicated borrow system. Use rust when you need the performance. Use a GC'd language like reason when you want less things to reason about.
> rust just trades better performance for a more complicated borrow system. I would say Rust trades more predictable performance for a more complicated borrow system.
Wonder if this project has anything to do with Eric Lippert's move to Facebook ( https://ericlippert.com/2016/02/08/facebook/ - Eric has also been producing a series of blog posts implementing a Z-Machine interpreter in OCaml to run mini-Zork on, starting here: https://ericlippert.com/2016/02/01/west-of-house/ ). Eric was on the C# compiler team at Microsoft and previously worked on JScript.
damn, i recently started writing a z machine interpreter in ocaml, and now i both really want to read those posts and really don't want to be influenced by lippert's design decisions before i've at least gotten my own project solidly underway.
This looks very interesting. I've always had OCaml in mind but never actually got around to using it in a project. Facebook could have done a better job describing what exactly this is, but they do provide a good overview at the end of the page (strangely!) [1]. In summary, Reason [2] is a new language (correction: interface to OCaml) that shares a part of the OCaml compiler toolchain and runtime. I don't know of any…
I always liked ML family PLs, but my problem with OCaml is lack of good stdlib. This is why I never invested a lot of time in to it sadly. Reasons looks like a more solid out of the box ocaml distribution which I actually like a lot. Will play with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always liked ML family PLs, but my problem with OCaml is lack of good stdlib. This is why I never invested a lot of time in to it sadly. Reasons looks like a more solid out of the box ocaml distribution which I actually like a lot. Will play with it.
Have you ever tried the Jane Street standard libraries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
damn, i recently started writing a z machine interpreter in ocaml, and now i both really want to read those posts and really don't want to be influenced by lippert's design decisions before i've at least gotten my own project solidly underway.
It's always better to know about the design decisions others have taken. If they faced the same choices you did, you can know their view on the tradeoffs (and experiences with their choice) and choose the same way as they did or choose differently, but either way you make your choice with a little more knowledge. If they come up with an idea you didn't even think of, surely you want to know about it, even if you aren…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's silly, but it's really hard to evaluate a language if you can't read the examples. No, this is not a silly notion. But I don't think the difference Reason makes is as big as you think. I mean, I don't really believe that you can read this: let foo = if (cond) { x } else { y }; foo + 1 but not this: let foo = if cond then x else y in foo + 1
The 'in' is what makes it difficult to understand for someone not familiar with OCaml syntax and semantics. Reason makes it easier.
But I admit that I probably can't fully appreciate whether this is really difficult for someone used to JavaScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'in' is what makes it difficult to understand for someone not familiar with OCaml syntax and semantics. Reason makes it easier.
I've heard that said, but I don't see how it's a big deal. OK, the very first example introducing let bindings would have to come with a sentence like "the 'in' part of 'let ... in' means 'in' just like in English: 'let' the binding be valid 'in' what follows". You don't have to define a whole new syntax where a single sentence in a language tutorial might be enough. But I admit that I probably can't fully appreciate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'in' is what makes it difficult to understand for someone not familiar with OCaml syntax and semantics. Reason makes it easier.
I've heard that said, but I don't see how it's a big deal. OK, the very first example introducing let bindings would have to come with a sentence like "the 'in' part of 'let ... in' means 'in' just like in English: 'let' the binding be valid 'in' what follows". You don't have to define a whole new syntax where a single sentence in a language tutorial might be enough. But I admit that I probably can't fully appreciate…