https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/comparison-to-ocaml#patte...
Yes, such a massive improvement to clarity.
Seriously there is nothing here I hadn't internalized within a day of working with F# or Python. Certainly nothing that justifies forking an entire alternate syntax.
Given that === is not a standard operator in OCaml, I fail to see the problem with clarity.
> Certainly nothing that justifies forking an entire alternate syntax.
You do realize that this is very much a subjective judgment, do you? Syntax does matter. You can argue that it doesn't matter enough to bother, but that's down to personal taste. Given the popularity that Reason seems to be enjoying, clearly, syntax is a sore point for enough people.
In any case, I fail to see the problem in general. Reason doesn't fragment the OCaml ecosystem, really, since it's just a different syntax for the same core language, and libraries etc remain. It's not any different than all the macro libraries for Lisps. Nobody is forcing you to use them, and you can still use a library written in Reason from OCaml, and vice versa. There's no real fragmentation.
And if Reason ever dies, all code that's written in it could just be converted to OCaml using the last version of their transpiler, and maintained as such thereafter.
So, what's the problem?
You really should go read up about this, because the actual answer is far more complicated than advertised. Hell, the Ocaml interop section in the official docs isn't even finished yet.
But this code does not compile. Even if you do not use https://github.com/ocaml/merlin you will always realize it at compile time. What type is y supposed to be to pass compilation?
People still complain about it, but somehow, it became one of the most popular languages on the planet.
And how is it welcoming to newcomers to essentially be upfront asking them "right, now which syntax will you use?"
Unless the answer of course is just to nudge them all in the direction of the one owned by a massive corporation with more money than some countries ...
And all because some people are allegedly pathologically incapable of understanding a language without bolting curly braces on it.
It's the most absurd overcorrection for a pedantic complaint I've ever seen in tech.
Facebook already uses OCaml.
My understanding is that it can be translated both ways with no difference of semantics.
All because some people just have to have their curly braces.
I will never stop being angry that this exists. There is no reason for it other than pedantic bikeshedding and Facebook’s mission to proprietize web tech. It does nothing but mangle a perfectly readable syntax and bifurcate the ecosystem of the language.