Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful
by frou_dh on Friday June 24, 2022 @11:14AM
(#31863516)
SML definitely has a more tastefully designed syntax also, and not only because it's a smaller grammar. OCaml syntax is the "scuffed" version of SML syntax, as the kids say!
Unfortunately to be a real-world SML user these days is a very isolating proposition, because although there are some really nice implementations (MLton, PolyML), to a first approximation there are zero libraries.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful
by xvilka on Friday June 24, 2022 @01:00PM
(#31865670)
SML is the dead end because specification wasn't updated for decades.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful
by hedora on Saturday June 25, 2022 @03:38AM
(#31873331)
For me, the borrow checked removes a lot of mental overhead. It finds all sorts of subtle concurrency bugs in my code.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful
by 3836293648 on Saturday June 25, 2022 @06:27PM
(#31879255)
Depends on your starting point. More overhead than GC, most of the time, so much less than C/C++
Still, I'd pick either over Scala. Superior compilation times, cleaner syntax, less complex. Haskell also just feels excessively clever.
I had hoped Rust would be "OCaml but for systems programming" and it sort of is, -- but the borrow checker and memory safety features, as neat as they are, add a lot of mental overhead.