I like Scala's combination of those approaches very much. It's a sharp sword but if you know to avoid pitfalls like ten layer class hierarchies, the FP + OOP integration works very well. It's also why it's so controversial: Scala is very non-prescriptive, it's on you to make good decisions.
I find pure Haskell-style FP too constraining, and the overhead of typed effects very unnecessary on the frontend – UI applications are essentially nothing but bunches of DOM manipulation effects, and the parts that don't need to touch the DOM have very little risk of doing so even without types to enforce it, so wrapping everything in effect types is just pointless IMO.
I haven't coded in ReasonML but yes, it's just a more approachable syntax for OCaml. Should be a good FP focused alternative.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Do you like the FP parts of Scala, or the OO parts of Scala, or both?
If you just like the FP parts of Scala, you may like Elm.
(I've not used ReasonML. I've heard it described as a marriage of JS and OCaml.)
I like Scala's combination of those approaches very much. It's a sharp sword but if you know to avoid pitfalls like ten layer class hierarchies, the FP + OOP integration works very well. It's also why it's so controversial: Scala is very non-prescriptive, it's on you to make good decisions.
I find pure Haskell-style FP too constraining, and the overhead of typed effects very unnecessary on the frontend – UI applications are essentially nothing but bunches of DOM manipulation effects, and the parts that don't need to touch the DOM have very little risk of doing so even without types to enforce it, so wrapping everything in effect types is just pointless IMO.
I haven't coded in ReasonML but yes, it's just a more approachable syntax for OCaml. Should be a good FP focused alternative.