Indeed, compilation speed is something I am most proud of . It is not just 10 or 20 percent faster, it's one or two magnitudes difference : ) On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:03 AM GordonBGood <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elm-discuss/Um7WIBTq9xU/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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.
