spyder81

It was never official, and the people behind it folded into the new ReScript team.

ReasonML is, as it has always been, a 100% syntax map to OCaml. It will always be that, but moving forward it will be nothing more than that. Compiling future ReasonML versions to JS will require js_of_ocaml.

The success of BuckleScript meant that a _lot_ of people used what they thought was ReasonML but it was really ReasonML+BuckleScript. This lead to a ton of confusion the moment newcomers realised they needed a second website to look up APIs.

ReScript includes a snapshot version of ReasonML for backwards compatibility, but it will never be upgraded.

The future of ReasonML is likely slow and steady progress, potentially fading into obscurity as the target audience is now very small (OCaml developers who don't like OCaml syntax).

It's still on 4.06, I think in 2021 they're targeting an upgrade (they haven't said how far forward they will upgrade to)

Quite the opposite, Reason v4 looks to be taking inspiration from the changes ReScript has made.

ReasonML isn't dead, but the way I heard the story it has always been a spare time project not a properly funded FB team. There was just enough spare time early on to get the community excited.

From the same source, I heard ReScript does have funding behind it.

IMO this isn't about whether ReScript wants to upstream their changes, it's a combination of things:

- Reason+BuckleScript was confusing at best, having two websites and different release schedules.

- Reason's goal is to be a 100% mapped syntax for OCaml. This does not mesh well with the goal of producing readable JS, so ReScript will probably end up as a subset of OCaml features.

- Reason syntax changes apparently caused grief when applied to BuckleScript. This one was never very clear, but regardless now that the syntax is in-house the ReScript team can be more responsive with it.

The problem with this transition is that it was dropped on the community in an unfinished state and BuckleScript was retired completely. The goals of the change are, I think, mostly reasonable.

You might have been able to use the same syntax before, but writing code for Reason native was already very different to writing Reason+BuckleScript for the browser. This just formalises the split.

To write the same code for both front and back end js_of_ocaml has been the standard since long before Reason came along, and it works just fine with Reason native.

The standard compiler can do a cold compile of a single file in milliseconds. When the compiler is that fast you _can_ just wrap it up and it'll still be faster than TypeScript.

But to answer your actual question: The current standard (reason-language-server) does simply wrap the compiler, and it's more than fast enough, but the community is working on a new merlin-based language server (ocaml-lsp) which does support partial compilation.

It's hard to offer more detail than that in a blog post. I'm not going to repeat the research papers or write one of my own. The post is already so long and complex, covering so many surface details, I couldn't reasonably push it any further.

User experience is definitely why we didn't go for an existing CRDT solution.

The model we've chosen is fairly agnostic to whether OT or CRDT is used to collaborate, as I'll expand on in the second post, so if we see an opportunity to switch to a CRDT-based solution we'll certainly jump on it!

You only need to normalise things like bold/italic/underline when using a browser DOM, every collaborative rich text model I've seen represents formatting as unordered attributes which is much easier to collaborate on.