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

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#31

Post by brmgb »

arthurcolle wrote: post #13
baruchel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't sound better in french. Any reasonable french version should be translated as "from".

String: ficelle Rope (advanced string): corde Thread: fil So string from object would like ficelle d'objet which is yeah, string from object. But the "of" thing in Ocaml is well documented. I vaguely remember them when I had an Ocaml project in my coursework.

No, “de” in French has the same meaning as “of” and sounds exactly as weird here. That’s clearly not where this comes from. Also the translation of string with this meaning is “chaîne de caractères”.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#32

Post by Foobar8568 »

l_dopa wrote: post #21
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 "...

Considering how math heavy is OCaml and how formal is/were French mathematics, especially post high school, this is most likely the reason.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#33

Post by tome »

marcosdumay wrote: post #28
tome wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

What do you do if you want to disambiguate the return type? I suppose `intFromString` works. I'm not sure what I chose `intOfString`. It's not because I'm French!

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#34

Post by devmunchies »

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…

Yeah most likely just french translation. A more accurate translation would have been "from" in this context.

`js_from_ocaml`, `string_from_int`, etc would have been clearer in english.

If i didn't speak Spanish it would bother me a lot more.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#35

Post by greggyb »

stetrain wrote: post #7
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.

I’m not sure on the level of F# support, but Blazor supports full ahead-of-time compilation of .NET code to WASM: “Blazor WebAssembly supports ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation, where you can compile your .NET code directly into WebAssembly. AOT compilation results in runtime performance improvements at the expense of a larger app size. Without enabling AOT compilation, Blazor WebAssembly apps run on the browser using…

If something works based on .NET IL, then it works equally well for F# as C#. Both are first class languages in .NET. Anything written in one can be used from the other (though it is often very un-idiomatic without a wrapper). Both compilers generate the same IL.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#36

Post by greggyb »

zogrodea wrote: post #5
auggierose wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Blazor supposed to do that?

That's right, and there's Bolero too. From my understanding, Blazor is by Microsoft and aimed at C# primarily while Bolero is from the wider community and aimed at F#. https://fsbolero.io/

Bolero is built on top of Blazor.[0]

https://fsbolero.io/docs/

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#37

Post by dan-robertson »

frou_dh wrote: post #10
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's just a dodgy French to English translation which then became a convention. Instead of e.g. to_string's buddy being called from_string, it was called of_string. Here's a thread of reddit about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ocaml/comments/6es88t/what_does_the...

It’s somewhat hard for me to decide how unnatural a translation this is as I’m used to seeing it in ocaml. My concise dictionary doesn’t have a definition that fits this use well. My non-concise dictionary describes the history of the senses of the word as “exceedingly complex”.

It has been used as a translation of the French de since the 11th century and I think it gets some senses (eg derivation) from that. With a verb meaning create, this ocaml construction is fine in modern English (eg ‘make a string of an int’) and dates back a long way (OED offers a source from 893; this is sense I. [VII.] 20. a. in the second edition). So I think partly the question is whether omitting make in make_string_of_int (or String.make_of_int) is an acceptable abbreviation in programming.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#38

Post by dan-robertson »

brmgb wrote: post #31
arthurcolle wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

String: ficelle Rope (advanced string): corde Thread: fil So string from object would like ficelle d'objet which is yeah, string from object. But the "of" thing in Ocaml is well documented. I vaguely remember them when I had an Ocaml project in my coursework.

No, “de” in French has the same meaning as “of” and sounds exactly as weird here. That’s clearly not where this comes from. Also the translation of string with this meaning is “chaîne de caractères”.

Is «chaîne de caractères» what French programmers call strings? (That would surprise me much as English-speaking programmers calling them ‘strings of characters’ would)

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#39

Post by dgan »

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…

Even the standard library isn't consistent on that. There are plenty of "Something.to_string"

But "standard library" never was a strong point of OCaml anyway so I guess meh shrugs

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#40

Post by abecedarius »

tome wrote: post #14
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 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.

Better yet, compare

    f = glork_to_floob (crumb_to_glork c)
versus

    f = floob_of_glork (glork_of_crumb c)
and picture the first style inside a more complex function with more constructors/conversions.
Post reply on HN