You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Reading that section as an already persuaded novice disciple of functional programming, I learn nothing new, and it seems to be a very general statement that applies equally to alternative functional-first languages. What does Reason bring to the table that alternatives don't or which is better than alternatives' offerings?
Also; if I wasn't already persuaded of the merits of functional programming and strong typesystems, then I can't imagine the current brief paragraph being enough to persuade me. It's vague and doesn't offer any evidence for its claims. It might be helpful to provide a link to a case study.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the issue! This section is intentionally brief so that the page does not become a novel explaining the values of functional programming. It's meant more of a reminder towards qualities that are beneficial in functional languages, and then if a reader is curious to learn more there are many articles talking about the benefits of these languages a quick search away. If you come across this page you likely already have a sense of the what & why of functional programming in general.
I do agree that we don't do a great job motivating why Reason over other functional programming languages. That's something we could try to improve here.
Context: https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/what-and-why#why-use-reason
Reading that section as an already persuaded novice disciple of functional programming, I learn nothing new, and it seems to be a very general statement that applies equally to alternative functional-first languages. What does Reason bring to the table that alternatives don't or which is better than alternatives' offerings?
Also; if I wasn't already persuaded of the merits of functional programming and strong typesystems, then I can't imagine the current brief paragraph being enough to persuade me. It's vague and doesn't offer any evidence for its claims. It might be helpful to provide a link to a case study.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: