News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by StreamBright on Sunday January 14, 2018 @03:17AM (#16143308)
Depends what is your goal. Learning a language with decent type system? Learning a language with lower level access to operating system features? I would suggest to learn OCaml because it got really popular in 2017 thanks to Facebook & Bloomberg, it has an amazing type system and you can use it to build CLI tools and web pages (Reason/Bucklescript) with an insanely good tooling (utop, jbuilder, merlin) and the community is probably the best community of software engineers I have encountered recently. If you are interested in lower level coding there is Mirage as well.

https://discuss.ocaml.org/

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by papaf on Sunday January 14, 2018 @03:51AM (#16143376)
I used OCaml a few years ago and I thought it was an excellent language. Despite being powerful it was really easy to learn.

One thing that put me off in the end was that it didn't support native OS threads (I have the same problem with Racket). Has threading support improved over the years?

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by grayrest on Sunday January 14, 2018 @05:33AM (#16143647)
> Has threading support improved over the years?

The main push in this area is Multicore OCaml[1]. I don't track OCaml closely enough to know how getting this into the main compiler is going.

[1] https://github.com/ocamllabs/ocaml-multicore/wiki

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by StreamBright on Sunday January 14, 2018 @07:48AM (#16144047)
I am not sure what exactly you are missing, isn't this a native OS thread either POSIX or Win32?

http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/libref/Thread.htm...

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by papaf on Sunday January 14, 2018 @03:58PM (#16146387)
The documentation that you linked to is not describing native OS threads. I am sure that the OCaml implementation is good for a lot of applications.

However, because I am used to writing multithreaded code using pthread or std::thread, I find the standard OCaml model uncomfortable and limiting. Its mostly a matter of personal taste but this is the reason I stopped using OCaml.

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by seertaak on Sunday January 14, 2018 @01:53PM (#16145600)
I tried it too; after I realized I that every struct had to have unique field names, I gave up. This was too much craziness for me, although I did think the module/functor concepts were very cool.
Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by ernst_klim on Tuesday January 16, 2018 @03:42AM (#16156681)
>I that every struct had to have unique field names

Nope, different structs could have fields named the same.

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by masoodusmani on Sunday January 14, 2018 @10:33AM (#16144640)
Are you sure Racket doesn't support native threads? I thought it had something called "places" for that.
Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by papaf on Sunday January 14, 2018 @03:46PM (#16146307)
I did not know about places, but after reading about them [1], I can see that although they are implemented on top of OS threads, it is not a conventional threading model.

For instance there is an instance of the Racket VM per place and this makes them heavier than it would be in a standard system programming language language such as C, C++ or Rust.

I am not saying it is better or worse -- just different.

[1] https://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/dls11-tsffd.pdf

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by z0ltan on Sunday January 14, 2018 @04:10AM (#16143429)
I have always been interested in OCaml, but I have a genuine question though - last when I looked at seriously at it, the standard library seemed to be a bit of a mess lacking a lot of features. A lot of modern resources seemed to focus on using Jane Street's Core(?) which I would not like to use - I'd rather depend on the standard language for standard features. Is this still a thing, or am I mistaken, or both? Please help! I really would like to use OCaml for a variety of hobby projects, including toy compilers. Which books/resources would you recommend?
Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by xfer on Sunday January 14, 2018 @08:44AM (#16144211)
You don't need Core, the shipped stdlib is good enough for toy projects. There are other stdlibs like containers and janestreet has split their stdlib into smaller pieces. What's your issue with having to use alternate stdlibs?

Regarding books, Real World Ocaml is very well written, although some examples might need tweaking.

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by z0ltan on Sunday January 14, 2018 @09:35AM (#16144390)
Thanks for the reply!

Mostly wondering how people ship stuff if there are different variants of std libs? Say you write your code entirely using one std lib and then try to share it (the code that is) with somebody who uses a different std lib, then the onus of learning the new std lib is entirely on him, right? How does that work for teams then? I know that Jane Street is a big user and so they have considerable influence. That being said, does the std lib (the one bundled with the distro) have enough features (like all the necessary data structures, for instance) to make using it viable in a non-trivial project (off the top of my head, say writing a very simple web server)? If so then, I suppose that's good enough.

Any recommendations for learning material? I have a copy of "Practical OCaml", don't really like it. INRIA's materials seem quite substantial, but more like reference.

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by xfer on Sunday January 14, 2018 @10:23AM (#16144587)
The standard stdlib has all useful data structures, mostly the differences are in providing more convenient functions and monadic interfaces that you might have to write yourself, if you didn't use the alternate libraries. There is nothing to "learn" about using another stdlib since most signatures are the same. And they can use a different stdlib if they want.

The migration from standard stdlib to alternate ones is fairly trivial(some signatures might differ but typed language means the compiler will catch them for you), so you can start using the stdlib and if you feel like writing some trivial things that should be in the stdlib or you need some advanced data structures you can use the alternate ones.

Also you need `lwt`(most people prefer this)/`async` library for writing concurrent programs like a webserver. `Cohttp` is a good library for doing http based client/servers. I strongly recommend `Real world ocaml` and the reference manual is excellent at looking up some new type-level features. Also reading well-known libraries code is an excellent way to learn a language.

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by z0ltan on Sunday January 14, 2018 @12:05PM (#16145019)
Excellent. Thanks for the detailed answer - that really helps. To be honest, I want to use OCaml for writing some toy compilers to begin with, and I'm sure that that'll require only the core language, but I would like to use it for more serious projects after that!

I'll start off with "Real world OCaml" and see how it goes!

Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by xfer on Sunday January 14, 2018 @01:43PM (#16145546)
Here is some resource for you to learn from: http://plzoo.andrej.com/
Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by erk__ on Sunday January 14, 2018 @05:28AM (#16143626)
You could also take a look at F# wich is also a ML derived language so the syntax is very similar to OCaml.
Re:Rust in 2018: easier to use by z0ltan on Sunday January 14, 2018 @09:38AM (#16144405)
I did consider it seriously (especially after watching Scott Wlaschin's Parser Combinators video), but it seems a bit too MS-centric for my liking. Who knows, maybe if learning OCaml doesn't pan out that well, it might be F# for me! :D ... the community seems to be focused, so that's one big advantage.