[HN Gopher] Comparing OCaml and Standard ML (2008)
___________________________________________________________________
Comparing OCaml and Standard ML (2008)
Author : nequo
Score : 38 points
Date : 2024-06-17 01:07 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (adam.chlipala.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (adam.chlipala.net)
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Comparing OCaml and Standard ML_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8497214 - Oct 2014 (68
| comments)
|
| _Comparing Standard ML and OCaml_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391937 - Aug 2012 (20
| comments)
| Jtsummers wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34805229 - Feb 15, 2023,
| 47 comments
|
| Spells out the "O" in OCaml as "Objective", so it doesn't turn
| up in the "past" list.
| Taikonerd wrote:
| OCaml makes so much sense to me -- it's just a shame that the
| syntax has some weird decisions. For example, an array is:
| let arr = [| 1; 2; 3 |];;
|
| instead of something like let arr = [1, 2, 3];
|
| I wish ReasonML (https://reasonml.github.io/) would come back --
| it's a new syntax for the same language, kind of the same
| relationship Elixir has to Erlang.
| wk_end wrote:
| Reason never went anywhere. And, like Ocaml, its array syntax
| has pipes in it (and like Ocaml, the pipeless version makes a
| list).
|
| I think you're doing Elixir a bit of a disservice by that
| comparison, though - Elixir is very much its own language on
| the Erlang platform, whereas Reason really is pretty much just
| an alternate syntax.
|
| That said, one of the big problems with Ocaml is that the
| ecosystem is so fragmented; I don't think Reason really adds
| much (at least if you're not using with JSX) to make it
| worthwhile and I'm kind of mad that it exists.
| steinuil wrote:
| dune supports Reason syntax out of the box, you just have to
| change the file extension to .re.
|
| https://dune.readthedocs.io/en/stable/reference/dune-project...
| speed_spread wrote:
| There's also F# if you're looking for an OCaml with better
| syntax.
| wk_end wrote:
| F#, for better or for worse, is missing some of the things
| that make OCaml really interesting - the powerful module
| system and the structurally typed object system.
|
| It does have its own neat features, though. Not to mention
| access to the .NET ecosystem, of course.
| NikkiA wrote:
| Ah, it's time for my every-two-monthly check to see if Ocaml is
| treated like it's still usable on windows...
|
| Nope, and now they've even removed the 'it'll be a first class
| target when we've finished rewriting OPAM' promise that was there
| for 3+ years, that's not good.
| nequo wrote:
| There's a working group that just formed to improve OCaml's
| Windows support:
|
| https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-windows-working-group/1475...
| tpetr wrote:
| Agree it's taken a long time but have you seen
| https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ann-opam-2-2-0-beta3/14772 ?
| NikkiA wrote:
| I hadn't, no. As I said I nominally just check every couple
| of months if support has been moved to Tier 1.
|
| That OPAM 2.2 is actually nearing release is good news. I'll
| keep a more vigilant eye on it for the next month or two.
|
| Ironically, I can't even remember what v5 feature it was that
| was a deal breaker (to not have) anymore, anyway.
| chipsdip wrote:
| F# bro
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-17 23:01 UTC)