Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I feel like I shouldn't feel ashamed when saying this, but here: mutation, imperative code & side-effect are kinda nice, and very much needed for a straightforward interop with e.g. existing JS/Obj-C/Java (hint hint) code.

Similar feelings...OCaml has mutability built in but you don't need it often. You can isolate its use to small areas of your code to keep it under control. If you went the Haskell route getting JS developers to adopt would be even harder.

> Also, speaking of native compilation: we're not reference counting but _some_ predictability when working with UI code is needed.

So the GC is well behaved with Reason scripts? I'm curious if you could use it for games.

Thanks for the insights. I haven't heard of Reason much to be honest which is a shame. I used OCaml as my main language for several years and going back to Java, Python and JavaScript was pretty painful!




Yeah. Some existing algorithms are more easily expressed with mutability, and for FFI it's very needed; I think some community-wide messaging regarding this is good enough. Constraining them at the type level might make adoption a bit harder.

We're just a syntax for OCaml; we don't change how it runs. Same GC. Reason's mMuch less sophisticated than you think, but also much fewer unknowns. https://reasonml.github.io/try/

The goal of Reason (and of BuckleScript) is so that people can convince their coworkers that OCaml isn't an esoteric unmaintainable language. BuckleScript is JavaScript: The Good Parts: The Good Parts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: