open_safety VS Elm

Malware delivered as an email with a link to a zip file containing a .js file is one of the most common methods of delivery, right behind word macros. The "map the .js extension to notepad.exe" is a common security trick with a measurable, immediate drop in malware in large orgs. You can deploy it via GPO or InTune.

Personal promotion, I built this as a better alternative:

https://github.com/technion/open_safety

Note the built in .js parser hasn't basically ever updated, if you're writing for this you're writing like you're targetting IE5.

Allow me to reference my own workaround for those vectors:

https://github.com/technion/open_safety

https://github.com/technion/open_safety

The time I've spent on the Github actions is substantively higher than the time I've spent on the .rs files. Of course you can't "test actions before commit" in the way you can actual code, so I kept having to make branches, make 15 commits like "try action fix again", followed by squashing them all down and merging.

Elm [1] is based on a similar idea. Build your app from pure functions that return HTML tags.

[1] https://elm-lang.org/

You also wouldn't really be creating your own new programing language. You would be creating something that can run JavaScript by following JavaScript standards and syntax. You might be able to add some non-standard features of your own on top of those standards, or include your own standard library of helpers or utilities, but you can't completely make a new or alternative language and then load it in the browser (or at least not by reimplementing ECMAScript standards... you actually can make your own language that runs within any Javascript enviroment, if you provide an interpreter or compiler that transforms it into valid JS. Some people have done something like this, eg Elm: https://elm-lang.org/).

You should at least have a look at https://elm-lang.org/ it is a pure functional language like Haskell (although with fewer fancy syntax/type classes) but it has some lovely libraries for visualisation and even with plain elm (+ elm-ui) doing string transformations can be easily done.

I get it. However, the whole point of using Unions to narrow your types, ensure only a set of possible scenarios can occur, and only access data of a particular union when it’s safe to do so. That’s some of what pattern matching can provide, and 100% of what using switch statements in TypeScript with their Discriminated Unions can provide. Yes, it’s not 100% exhaustive, but TypeScript is not soundly typed, and even Elm which is still has the same issue TypeScript does: You’re running in JavaScript where anything is possible. So it’s good enough to build with and much better than what you had.

The beauty of a language like Elm (and other lambda-calculus / functional programming inspired languages) is that there's very little transformation involved in going from an idea to code. And that seems to have a big impact on getting things done.

I think the most fun and approachable way for beginners to build games with functional programming is with Elm [1].

See a few (small, demo) games built by the community in [2] .

Notice Elm has abandoned the FRP approach in favor of Model-View-Update [3].

[1] https://elm-lang.org/