ec changed the topic of #elliottcable to: a π―ππ ππ π―πππππππππ π―ππππππ slash sΝΜuΝΝpΝΝeΜΜΊrΜΌΜ¦iΜΌΜoΜΜ¬rΜΜ cΜΝα»₯Μ§ΝαΈ·Μ‘ΝΕ£ΝΜ || #ELLIOTTCABLE is not about ELLIOTTCABLE
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has quit [Quit: Rurik]
_whitelogger has joined #elliottcable
_whitelogger has joined #elliottcable
<jfhbrook>
jesus I haven't even written a line of typescript and I'm already seeing this glaring problem
<jfhbrook>
there's no culture of wrapping javascript libraries to have stricter typing, at all
<jfhbrook>
so it's like, oh I'm getting an object from minimist that *I* know has a structure, but the typing system actually knows very little about it? string keys and a union of value types? great!
<jfhbrook>
is there an options parsing library that really leverages this new type system? no! and people don't even really see what the problem is!
<ec>
)=
<jfhbrook>
We Don't Make Any Money If You Don't Click The Fucking Link
<ec>
see? I'm not an illogical hater, I swear! I like TypeScript! I just like it for _one specific task_, which other, better tools chose to be incapable of fulfilling.
<ec>
problem is, the only other viable option is BuckleScript (Sorry, Flow, you lost the war, apparently. And Fable's too young. And ghc.js, jesus christ, what a nightmare.) β which also has all those aforementioned issues
<jfhbrook>
flow is apparently really bad
<jfhbrook>
super buggy
<ec>
this is precisely why I'm putting so much time into BuckleScript 'n OCaml crap. I really, genuinely, honestly care about the JavaScript ecosystem; and I really, really think we're all screwed if BuckleScript/Reason/whatever dies.
<jfhbrook>
yeah, it's looking like either we use typescript and make an active effort to make a walled garden, or we use purescript or bucklescript and are forced to write a bunch of bespoke code
<ec>
fwiw, I forgot to mention this, but Elm can be really great, if you're planning the "walled garden" approach.
<ec>
Evan makes, uh, large, sweeping changes that piss people off on the regular, tho, and yeah, needs to be β again β as agnostic to external libraries as possible; I hear interop is a nightmare.
<ec>
got to talk to more than one group that's using Reason in production *not even because they like Reason* β but because they bought into Elm, and got fed up with that stuff, and ended up deciding BuckleScript provides better/looser/more-escape-hatch-friendly interop.
<jfhbrook>
yeah I flipped through the elm docs and idk I got a bad feeling
<jfhbrook>
bucklescript and reason make sense to me, philosophically
<jfhbrook>
reasonml*
<ec>
ugh thing is, I've only ever heard Reason users hate on Elm, lol, so. grain of salt.
<ec>
literally everybody else I've spoken to about it _loves_ it.
<ec>
Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
<ec>
it's all a mess and I'm tired and I really, really just want _some_ ML-derivative to succeed and survive alongside TypeScript.
<jfhbrook>
well like my cofounder (potential cofounder) originally suggested purescript and was interested in reason being more approachable than something that's clearly internet haskell
<jfhbrook>
you know what we *could* do lol
<ec>
I know absolutely, literally nothing about PureScript β how closely does it track to JavaScript runtime semantics?
<jfhbrook>
oh I know very little about it as well, but I *think* it's purescript : haskell :: reason : ocaml
<ec>
because the lazy-evaluation stuff is an absolute nightmare w/ ghc.js. diametric opposite of BuckleScript, re: output being semantically clearly linked to the input, lol.
<jfhbrook>
oh, I see what you mean - it sounded like it was meant for writing practical software in the same way bucklescript is
<jfhbrook>
but I haven't done the reading
<jfhbrook>
I like *just* remembered what it was called last night before bed
<jfhbrook>
and then focused on researching typescript tonight
<ec>
my understanding (hope?) was that PureScript was a _new_ language, only similar to Haskell in syntax and type-level concepts, but with a more Web/JavaScript-friendly runtime evaluation model
<jfhbrook>
after a **hilarious** day at work
<ec>
so what's this thing you're gonna build, anyway?
<jfhbrook>
that sounds likely ec, it didn't look like it was trying to actually be haskell
<jfhbrook>
ooooh
<jfhbrook>
so
* ec
braces for a pitch
<jfhbrook>
we're still trying to figure out how to pitch it and exactly what it looks like, but here's how I'd explain it to an industry person
<jfhbrook>
so we want to build the capabilities of a content studio and/or an ad agency - we have professionals on staff that can write, record, and anything else content-related you would need; but we target the long tail, small time stuff, using techniques similar to gig sites like taskrabbit or fiverr
<jfhbrook>
the mvp is more claire's original pitch: an app where you can easily work with a professional writer to craft small pieces of text, like a difficult email or a brand tweet you want to go viral
<jfhbrook>
so we make it easy to buy small amounts of text written by people with bylines in things you've heard of
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has quit [Quit: Rurik]
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has quit [Client Quit]
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has quit [Client Quit]
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Sgeo__ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]