On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 04:45:14 UTC+7, OvermindDL1 wrote: > > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 8:09:28 PM UTC-7, GordonBGood wrote: > >> I see that BuckleScript would work fine for JavaScript output and OCaml >> can be fast, but wouldn't int64 with two int's be a bit slow? It's just >> that i prefer Haskell syntax and capabilities more than OCaml as it just >> feels like a more modern language. I do like F# (and thus probabably >> Fable), but it isn't as pure a language as Haskell. I think I'll see what >> GHCJS can do for me, once I can get it installed. >> > > Unless you know any other way of representing int64 on javascript? An > array of two integers is about the best you can do. Using a native > javascript integer you get 32-bit. Using a native javascript number you > get a 64-bit float (53-bits if I recall correctly of usable integer). >
No, that it the only way I can see it; just a limitation of JavaScript. And you remember correctly, IEEE 64-bit floats have 53 bits including sign bit in the mantissa. Also, OCaml and Haskell are about the same age, although OCaml is based on > the older SML, but as for the 'feel' of it there are two things to note: > > 1. OCaml's language is designed for fast parsing, like the code that Bob > Zhang gave above compiles on 0.015 seconds on my machine here. Even very > complex programs compile in seconds at most, compared to my 'usual' Haskell > programs taking multiple minutes (or potentially hours on more complex > programs that use a lot of HKT's). But near every decision of OCaml's > syntax was designed to make for a *very* fast compiler (and elm was modeled > as a mix of OCaml and Haskell syntax, see > https://github.com/OvermindDL1/bucklescript-testing/blob/master/src/main_counter.ml > as > a working Elm example in OCaml). > Indeed, by every compilation speed benchmark I have seen, OCaml beat the pack, sometimes by a lot. That is good for my use as a BucketScript front end so it doesn't bog down trial and error development. I have no complaints about Elm compilation speed or syntax; it feels more modern than OCaml, which is a good thing. > 2. There is a PPX (preprocessor 'essentially', but of the AST) called > ReasonML that is OCaml with a fluffed up, more javascript'y (ew) syntax > that many like if you want something more modern feeling, but it is still > just OCaml. > Bob mentioned it, I've had a look at it and like the concept, but am not sure how to install it on my system (Windows 10 using Visual Studio Code as an IDE for both Elm and BuckleScript). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
