6 ms·

Looks like their plan is to reuse the ocaml compiler backends that output javascript; but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything explicit to promote Reaso

• kbenson 10y ago
  Well, if you ignore the red button that runs you through comparisons of different Javascript syntax to the equivalent Reason syntax, then sure, they aren't doing anything explicit...
  • wtetzner 10y ago
    That's a comparison of syntax, which has nothing to do with compiling to Javascript.
    • kbenson 10y ago
      Whether they have an intermediate step that is OCaml or not is irrelevant. Most compilers have one of more intermediate representations between source and executable. I think providing a syntax comparison to Javascript right next to a syntax comparison to OCaml is a clear indication that they are marketing to Javascript programmers, and the only reason for that is if they intend thelanguage as a replacement or supplement to Javascript. That may or may not seem relevant to you based on ciniglio comment, but I think it's on point if you follow the thread from it's source down.
      • jordwalke 10y ago
        In 2016, "marketing to JavaScript programmers" is pretty much the same thing as "marketing to programmers". Providing context that the vast majority of programmers will understand is helpful regardless of the compilation strategy. That being said, of course people want a language that can compile to JavaScript, and it's worth mentioning the expanding set of options for doing so. But the syntax comparison really would be worthwhile even if it weren't the case, if only to provide context to what is likely the largest developer community that exists today.