melange VS ocaml

Hey HN, at Ahrefs we have been working on an online book that hopefully helps React developers get up and running with Melange, an OCaml to JavaScript compiler. You can read more about Melange here: https://melange.re/.

There are still a few chapters that we'd like to add before considering it "complete", but it might be already helpful for some folks out there, that's why we decided to publish it early.

The book uses Reason syntax to implement React components using ReasonReact components. You can read more about both in:

https://reasonml.github.io/

In my previous post on trying to use the NextJS App Router and Reason I described some of the problems and limitations of their compatibility with one another. With the release of Melange 2 I decided to see if the new features of Melange 2 could help to increase the compatibility of Reason and the NextJS App Router. I have also documented some of the things learnt after trying Melange (v1) with Astro and Remix.

So it's Reason, not ReasonML which the umbrella project's name, and Rescript is a imcompatible syntax split from the Bucklescript team (that previously transpiled Reason to JS). Bucklescript's new name is... Rescript.

But not everyone agrees with the split and work is being done on Melange to replace Bucklescript : https://github.com/melange-re/melange

Ultimately JsOfOcaml can directly transpile Ocaml to JS.

In reality, most folks that developed BuckleScript frontends with ReasonML switched to ReScript syntax and are happy with it. Some felt more friction because of their reliance on PPXes or FP-heavy libraries (like Relude) and those people tend to use the Melange fork of BuckleScript or they switched to js_of_ocaml.

There is a fork of ReScript that supports ReasonML syntax and with the goal of maintaining Ocaml compatibility: https://github.com/melange-re/melange.

There's also a fork of BuckleScript/ReScript called Melange that guts its build system so that instead of using ninja, it works with more standard tools for the ecosystem, specifically dune and esy. In doing so they managed to also finally get the compiler off of OCaml 4.06: now it can use a newer OCaml compiler and take advantage of four years worth of language and compiler improvements.

For OCaml and ReasonML your options are js_of_ocaml (mentioned here in ReasonML docs) or a fairly new fork of BuckleScript called melange. They differ in implementation and output, with JSOO taking intermediate bytecode generated by ocamlc and turning it into unreadable JS, vs Melange being a patched compiler that builds more human-readable JS.

> OCaml’s configure script is also “normal”

If that’s this OCaml, it has a configure.ac file in the root directory, which looks suspicious for an Autotools-free package: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml

You probably already know, but with OCaml 5 the only way to get flamegraphs working is to either:

* use framepointers [1]

* use LBR (but LBR has a limited depth, and may not work on on all CPUs, I'm assuming due to bugs in perf)

* implement some deep changes in how perf works to handle the 2 stacks in OCaml (I don't even know if this would be possible), or write/adapt some eBPF code to do it

OCaml 5 has a separate stack for OCaml code and C code, and although GDB can link them based on DWARF info, perf DWARF call-graphs cannot (https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/issues/12563#issuecomment-193...)

If you need more evidence to keep it enabled in future releases, you can use OCaml 5 as an example (unfortunately there aren't many OCaml applications, so that may not carry too much weight on its own).

[1]: I haven't actually realised that Fedora39 has already enabled FP by default, nice! (I still do most of my day-to-day profiling on an ~CentOS 7 system with 'perf --call-graph dwarf', I was aware that there was a discussion to enable FP by default, but haven't noticed it has actually been done already)

11. OCaml - $91,026

> It partially helps since it forces you to have types where they matters most: exported functions

But the problém the OP has is not knowing the types when reading the source (in the .ml file).

> How would it feels like to use list if only https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/stdlib/list.ml was available,

If the signature where in the source file (which you can do in OCaml too), there would be no problem - which is what all the other (for some definition of "other") languages except C and C++ (even Fortran) do.

No, really, I can't see a single advantage of separate .mli files at all. The real problém is that the documentation is often worse too, as the .mli is autogenerated and documented afterwards - and now changes made later in the sources need to be documented in the mli too, so anything that doesn't change the type often gets lost. The same happens in C and C++ with header files.

If you have been in the Ruby community for the past couple of years, it's possible that you're not a super fan of types or that this concept never passed through your mind, and that's totally cool. I myself love the dynamic and meta-programming nature of Ruby, and honestly, by the time of this article's writing, we aren't on the level of OCaml for type checking and inference, but still, there are a couple of nice things that types with sorbet bring to the table:

Looks like there have been proposals to eliminate use of 3 operand lea in OCaml code (not accepted sadly):

https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/8531

An amazing example is Ocaml lang logo / mascot. It might be useful to talk with them to know what was the process behind this work. The About page camel head on Perl dot org header is also a pretty good example of simplification, but it's not a logo, just a friendly illustration, as the O'Reilly camel is. Another notable logo for this animal is the well known tobacco industry company, but don't get me started on that (“good” logo, though, if we look at the effectiveness of their marketing).

Haskell and Agda are probably the most obvious examples. Ocaml too, but it is much older, so its type system is not as categorical. There is also Idris, which is not as well-known but is very cool.

That does sound problematic, but without the code it is hard to tell what is the issue. Typically, compiling a 6kLoc file like https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/typing/typecore.ml takes 0.8 s on my machine.