dream VS rescript

> It sounds like you read my statement as "run the exact same code in node or OCaml" which I agree would have been very hard.

Hello! Indeed, I did misunderstand you. I agree that it was possible to share some parts of the code between Reason's JS target with BuckleScript, and native target with the stock OCaml compiler. I think a pretty reasonable number of people did that. Actually, it's still possible to this day even with ReScript e.g. https://github.com/aantron/dream/tree/master/example/w-fulls...

> Between the breaking changes and the general change in development philosophy...switching to the ReScript compiler for my project would have required nearly a complete rewrite.

There were perhaps a couple of minor breaking changes but can you explain why it would have required a near complete rewrite? I wasn't aware of anything major like that. ReScript even supported and as far as I know, to this day continues to support the old Reason syntax.

> you might want to check out OCaml for general purpose programming

Any tips on backend frameworks to look at? I need to write a small websocket service for a side-project and have always wanted to try OCaml. I came across https://github.com/aantron/dream.

The framework I played around with for OCaml was called Dream: https://github.com/aantron/dream. I think it had built-in support for auth, but I didn't use it in what I was doing. I also barely scratched the surface of what it supported. On the whole, it seemed really nice though. The biggest issues I had were figuring out OCaml since I'd literally never used it before and figuring out how to make an HTTP call from within OCaml since the documentation can be iffy. Thankfully, Dream's documentation was actually reasonably good.

Yes. OCaml + all of the 3 OCaml-to-JS compilers support OCaml syntax.

Dream itself demonstrates:

- Server and client both written in Reason, using ocamlc+Melange https://github.com/aantron/dream/tree/master/example/r-fulls...

That example could also have been written in OCaml syntax, because ocamlc (native) and Melange (JS) both support OCaml. However, Reason is nicer if you want to use React with JSX.

- Server and client both written in OCaml, using ocamlc+Js_of_ocaml https://github.com/aantron/dream/tree/master/example/w-fulls...

The remaining example uses Ocaml on the server and ReScript on the client, using the ReScript compiler. However, you could use OCaml on the client with the ReScript compiler. Just as with Melange, you would lose access to nice JSX syntax https://github.com/aantron/dream/tree/master/example/r-fulls...

It's definitely a lot and not user-friendly to have to decide between all these options, but the community is experimenting greatly right now... so it's good and bad, and that's how it is :/

As for Node.js, using ReScript syntax requires you to use Node.js on the native side, but that is the only coupling. If you write your native side in OCaml or Reason, you can compile it to native code with ocamlc (technically, ocamlopt is the internal command; nobody uses either one directly, but the build system calls them).

When I see this it makes me want to run for ReasonML/ReScript/Elm/PureScript.

Sum types (without payloads on the instances they are effectively enums) should not require a evening filling ceremonial dance event to define.

https://reasonml.github.io/

https://rescript-lang.org/

https://elm-lang.org/

https://www.purescript.org/

(any I forgot?)

It's nice that TS is a strict super set of JS... But that's about the only reason TS is nice. Apart from that the "being a strict super set" hampers TS is a million and one ways.

To my JS is too broken to fix with a strict super set.

Interestingly, you probably think that calling eval itself is slow, and I thought this myself. However, it was actually not as slow as I expected. For example, creating a simple nested object schema and calling the parser once happened to be 1.8 times faster with ReScript Schema using eval than Zod. I really put a lot of effort into making it as fast as possible, and I have to thank the ReScript language and the people behind it for allowing me to write very performant and safe code.

Fortunately, the OCaml compiler is very modular, and there have been efforts to make things more... reasonable.

- Reason, a different syntactic frontend for regular OCaml: https://reasonml.github.io/

- ReScript, a language with OCaml semantics that compiles into: JS https://rescript-lang.org/ (I suppose it's a reincarnation of js-of-ocaml).

Elm, ReScript, F#, Ocaml, Scala… it’s just normal to name your types, then use them places. In fact, you’ll often create the types _before_ the code, even if you’re not really practicing DDD (Domain Driven Design). Yes, you’ll do many after the fact when doing functions, or you start testing things and decide to change your design, and make new types. Either way, it’s just “the norm”. You then do the other norms like “name your function” and “name your variables”. I’m a bit confused why it’s only 2 out of 3 (variables and functions, not types) in this TypeScript Angular project. I’ll have to look at other internal Angular projects and see if it’s common there as well.

A web application makes use of these same ingredients, i.e. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, but it uses significantly more JavaScript. As the JavaScript powering your web application grows in size it can bring with it a variety of problems that a few languages, like TypeScript, ReScript, PureScript, and Elm, have attempted to solve. Each of the aforementioned compile to JavaScript languages have their pros and cons but it is beyond the scope of this article to get into those details. Suffice it to say, my preference is Elm. It is also not the goal of this article to convince you to use Elm but only to show you how Elm fits into the flow of creating a web application and hosting it on GitHub Pages. So let's continue by adding Elm to our project.

Since JavaScript doesn't have a pattern-matching like Rust, it could be hard to replicate the same logic. I used the ReScript compiler to maintain the original logic as much as possible. It made me able to port it confidently. Specifically check_pair function can be converted into this.