On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 23:00:21 UTC+7, OvermindDL1 wrote: > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-7, GordonBGood wrote: > >> Yes, Elm is fast enough for many purposes. Tree shaking programs such as >> the Google Compiler reduce code size. Compile time is currently adequate >> for many uses, although slow compared to something like OCaml/BuckScript >> that has been expressly optimized for compile speed. >> > > Actually tree shaking will do absolutely nothing for Elm code as Elm > compiles everything into a single module that all highly indirectly > references itself. It would help with bucklescript as it outputs modules, > but bucklescript already tree-shakes as part of its compiler optimizations > anyway. >
Ah, haven't tried reducing Elm's output code file size, didn't know tree shaking wouldn't help. Is there currently any way to reduce Elm's output code size which includes all library functions? I assume that things that Evan is working on will address this. > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 6:41:55 PM UTC-7, GordonBGood wrote: > >> One thing that BuckleScript does by default that breaks type safety is >> not do array bounds checks, but that wouldn't be a problem for an Elm front >> end as Elm does not use (mutable) arrays directly. >> > > The `Array` calls do bound checks, just OCaml is an exception'y language > (the `option` type is newer than the language itself, and `Array` has been > in since the start) so they will throw an exception if out of bounds. > There are option variants of those calls that you can use though. And > using the 'list' type over the 'array' type is what most people would > always do anyway. > Hongbo has addressed my concern: apparently it was just due to the older version of BuckleScript on the try website. -- 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.
