On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:27:36 PM UTC, OvermindDL1 wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-7, Rupert Smith wrote: > >> An alternative might be to re-write the Native modules in the Elm core in >> OCaml. There isn't a huge amount of it. >> > > Precisely this, I've already done quite a large chunk of it as a test and > it translates very easily (and becomes type safe, which Elm's is not as > I've hit 'undefined's in pure elm code before (already in the bug tracker, > but why did they happen at all?!)). I kept it identical to the Elm API as > well, though if I broke Elm's API in a couple of minor ways then I could > *substantially* reduce the number of allocations done... But yes, I've > rewrote most of Elm's native Core code as well as some third-party > libraries like navigation, all without a touch of javascript and all of it > type safe the whole way, mostly playing around but we ended up using a lot > of it at work anyway (I still need to get around to cleaning it up and > releasing it...). >
In my view, this also provides very good justification for not allowing native code into packages.elm-lang.org. Porting Elm to another platform in this way is manageable. -- 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.
