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

51–53 of 53 posts

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#51

Post by nequo »

tome wrote: post #50
abecedarius wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, fair. Forth especially really commits to that left-to-right order in its general style -- I like it when a language and its culture are conscious about readability in this way.

It is interesting that the "of" style is common in Ocaml where the left-to-right style is common. They seem to clash! I would like to know what it's like to work in a fully left-to-right language, for example, to define `my_floob`: let my_crumb |> zing_to_crumb |> crumb_to_glork |> glork_to_floob = my_floob

In addition to Forth, R can do this too:

  x |> zing_to_crumb() |> crumb_to_glork() |> glork_to_floob() -> my_floob
But it is not idiomatic.

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#52

Post by afiori »

hajile wrote: post #26
progval wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The of in Cup of water act as a normal genitive. It communicates that the cup relates to water and the only reasonable relation between a cup and an edible liquid is that the cup contains the liquid

Re: Wasm_of_OCaml

#53

Post by FrustratedMonky »

pjmlp wrote: post #46
greggyb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware of the issues with .NET Native. Your second point is exactly what I said, though. F# can consume things written in C#. Whether the F# language team wants to include some specific feature is a different question. C# libraries that use the protected attribute can be used transparently in F#. They are different languages with a shared runtime. You can't write a computation expression in C#, but an F# libr…

> C# libraries that use the protected attribute can be used transparently in F#. Only if you don't need to write data types that need to be consumed by said libraries, as to express those types you need C# features. Another two key examples are the recent trends from .NET team to depend on Roslyn and code generators, both not supported by F#, so the language can't be fully used in such workloads without a little bit…

Yes. Think this is the frustrating part. MS kind of broadcast like it is equal, full language. But .NET doesn't support everything.

I think this is why .NET core doesn't have typeproviders?

Post reply on HN