On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 3:18:48 PM UTC, OvermindDL1 wrote: > > That is actually why I think Elm should compile to a a different back-end, > like ocaml/bucklescript or so. The syntax is uniform enough that making an > elm->ocaml/bucklescript transpiler would be just a matter of re-using most > of the existing parser in OCaml, which is already beyond blazing fast in > comparison. It would significantly reduce elm's compiling time, it would > get it to a back-end that has far far more optimizing passes than elm > itself does while being substantially better tested, and it would give a > method of being able to compile elm to bare-metal for very fast server-side > page generation. >
Now you're talking. All that this would take would be to write an Elm parser into the first stage of the OCaml pipeline? You'd also need to compile the Native modules, is there already some way to feed them into the Ocaml pipeline? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
