tool-conventions VS ramda

> Better interoperability

AFAIK, the examples you give all target a basic C ABI [0] or can be made to target the same ABI. In Rust, it means targeting wasm32-unknown-emscripten

The Rust team is also working on a "WASM ABI"[1] which would be useful in taking advantage of stuff like multi-value returns, and other compilers could just choose to target that. More likely, the C ABI on WASM will be updated to account for missing features, and that'll be the standard for interoperability in the WASM ecosystem.

[0]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/blob/main/Ba...

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/design-me...

C ABI: Compatible with the C language Application Binary Interface (ABI). So code in the language is usable from other languages. Inspired by Zig. Since compiling to WASM is desirable, WASM's C ABI could probably be used, instead of a separate implementation towards the C ABI.

There is maybe a solution. From what I found the linker will glue constructor functions and they have an associated priority. (look https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/blob/master/Linking.md here for the "linking meta data section"). I explored the ldd/wasm source code directory and it looks like there are also destructor functions. I have not found out in which sections such functions should be placed (after 1h of exploration). Would you like to pursue? I am ok to receive pushes or even share owner ship of the repository.

JavaScript is great for point-free programming! Make sure you check out Ramda.js https://ramdajs.com/

It’s fun in the sense that solving a puzzle is fun, but I avoid it for anything I need to maintain long-term.

But it’s good practice for understanding combinators which is useful for some kinds of problems.

This is very cool. I remember I got sucked into things like Ramda going down this functional programming rabbit hole :-)

https://ramdajs.com/

To create our pipeline, I'm going to use the pipe function from the NodeJS ramda library instead of building my own.

Other libraries to check out are pratica and ramda

I recently took ownership of the new types/ramda repo. This repo is re-exported by @types/ramda and is the first step to bringing type definitions for ramda in-house. We're already hard at work correcting major issues, adding full currying support, and general bug fixes

I'm going to be honest. You probably don't need to use currying in JavaScript. In fact, trying to fit it in your code is going to do more harm than good, unless it's just for fun. Currying only becomes useful when you fully embrace functional programming, which, in JavaScript, means using a library like Ramda instead of the standard built-in functions.

Lodash gets so many things wrong I’d rather not see it in most projects. I appreciate a good utility library for JS projects but my go-to choice has to be Ramda[1]. Every function it exports is curried and works great with pipe which enables me to write highly reusable and composable functions in pointfree notation. I have never been as productive with lodash, and I find the functional style easier to read

[1] https://ramdajs.com/

Do note though that ramda is different from rambda. 👍 (Granted they are very similar!)