On Friday, 13 January 2017 22:40:07 UTC+7, Rupert Smith wrote: > > 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? >
Elm "Native" libraries are JavaScript, and that is what BuckleScript does: as well as output JS code, it also has JS FFI to allow BuckleScript code to call to/receive calls from JS code. I think this would be handled by an Elm PP just as OCaml handles FFI references - leaving FFI blanks to be later "filled in" by later passes. -- 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.
