On Friday, 13 January 2017 22:40:07 UTC+7, Rupert Smith wrote: > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 3:18:48 PM UTC, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >> That is actually why I think Elm should compile to a a different >> back-end, like ocaml/bucklescript or so. The syntax is uniform enough that >> making an elm->ocaml/bucklescript transpiler would be just a matter of >> re-using most of the existing parser in OCaml, which is already beyond >> blazing fast in comparison. It would significantly reduce elm's compiling >> time, it would get it to a back-end that has far far more optimizing passes >> than elm itself does while being substantially better tested, and it would >> give a method of being able to compile elm to bare-metal for very fast >> server-side page generation. >> > > Now you're talking. > > All that this would take would be to write an Elm parser into the first > stage of the OCaml pipeline? You'd also need to compile the Native modules, > is there already some way to feed them into the Ocaml pipeline? >
Elm "Native" libraries are JavaScript, and that is what BuckleScript does: as well as output JS code, it also has JS FFI to allow BuckleScript code to call to/receive calls from JS code. I think this would be handled by an Elm PP just as OCaml handles FFI references - leaving FFI blanks to be later "filled in" by later passes. -- 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.
