re-web

What's an example use case where heterogeneous lists turn out to be fine but can't be modelled with eg the OCaml difflist technique, eg https://github.com/yawaramin/re-web/blob/0d6c62fb432f85cc437... ?

Really exciting to watch the developments in OCaml/Reason web frameworks/libraries. I love the language and wish I could use it instead of Ruby for my personal projects at least. Others that have caught my interest are: Sihl: https://github.com/oxidizing/sihl ReWeb: https://github.com/yawaramin/re-web/ Of course, if you're interested in OCaml/Reason and don't know about Revery you're missing out.

Just to add some off-the-beaten-path solutions I've come across recently: https://github.com/Bogdanp/koyo - Koyo: a web app toolkit written in Racket https://github.com/yawaramin/re-web - ReWeb: a ReasonML/OCaml web framework https://cons.io - Gerbil Scheme has an embedded web server that supports writing handlers for

Yes, it will, especially in terms of ecosystem and integrations with various other technologies in your stack. But in the meantime I would recommend experimenting with it just because when you hit the sweet spot, it can be very productive. One option is a framework I'm working on: https://github.com/yawaramin/re-web/

> I am referring to proper list comprehensions Oh cool, I'd forgotten F# had those (or maybe it got them recently?). > Its true that you can't literaly transpile very high order things such as GADT but the was majority of code is trivial to translate Would still have to disagree there; OCaml code heavily relies on modules/module types/functors, while F# code relies more on classes. In practice these are not trivially translateable. > I will dig in to see what people build around it... The major thing is getting an async/await-like syntax for concurrent operations. Super useful for literally everyone. E.g. my project https://github.com/yawaramin/re-web/blob/eb7ce8474d34c60f9f9...

> I think it's a bit weak for "programming in the large" Really have to disagree with this one, for programming in the large the best tool you have is modularization, and OCaml's module implementation is second to none. > (cumbersome types, This is usually an indication of trying to program OCaml 'like Haskell' or some other language, instead of learning the OCaml way. > typeclasses, Matter of opinion but I honestly think not having return-type polymorphism, and having a slightly more explicit model, actually works in OCaml's favour–faster compile times, more explicit type errors, less 'magical-looking' code that's easier to follow. > lack of type annotations sometimes hurts) Sometimes–but the idiom is very much to put type annotations in separate interface files, which I think is the best of both worlds–implementations look clutter-free