News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why OCaml?.

Re:Why OCaml? by radarsat1 on Saturday September 10, 2011 @11:52PM (#2983154)
> ML is a strong, statically-typed version of Lisp.

Meh? How so?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OCaml? by jallmann on Sunday September 11, 2011 @12:20AM (#2983204)
The author explained why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_inference

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OCaml? by stonemetal on Sunday September 11, 2011 @10:10AM (#2983798)
Not to put words in other people's mouth but I believe he is more concerned with 'version of Lisp' than the 'statically-typed' part. It is kind of like saying basic is an interpreted version of C. The two languages are more or less unrelated outside of the fact that both are impure functional programming languages.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OCaml? by radarsat1 on Sunday September 11, 2011 @12:31PM (#2984080)
I'm familiar with type inference, thanks. I have no idea what it has to do with Lisp.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OCaml? by jallmann on Monday September 12, 2011 @01:03PM (#2988002)
I just interpreted the article an imprecise way of saying " they're both functional, but one is statically typed," by assuming Lisp as the canonical example of FP (rightly or not).

Not the most apt comparison, to be sure.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OCaml? by rat on Sunday September 11, 2011 @01:42AM (#2983307)
Wouldn't that be Typed Scheme/Typed Racket?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OCaml? by eru on Sunday September 11, 2011 @09:40AM (#2983764)
Without the macro-friendly syntax.
[ Parent | on HN ]