News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful by OneDeuxTriSeiGo on Saturday July 26, 2025 @06:59PM (#44697570)
At least theoretically they could be however OCaml is in large part driven by Jane Street and has been for some time now and Jane Street's entire business model is built around optimizing for ultra high throughput, ultra low latency software where mistakes could cost on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars.

So my guess would be less that Haskell is not these things (nor couldn't it be) but rather that OCaml has had the external forces necessary to optimise for these things above all else.

Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful by AnimalMuppet on Saturday July 26, 2025 @07:12PM (#44697636)
Is OCaml lazy? I'm not an expert, but if you want ultra high throughput, you might not want lazy. If I understand correctly, in Haskell some nonobvious things can slow you down because of the laziness.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful by KiranRao0 on Saturday July 26, 2025 @07:26PM (#44697724)
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful by sestep on Saturday July 26, 2025 @07:19PM (#44697679)
No, OCaml is not lazy.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful by teiferer on Monday July 28, 2025 @04:37AM (#44708651)
How does laziness cause a slowdown? It merely reorders work done, it doesn't necessarily create more work.
Re:OCaml Programming: Correct and Efficient and Beautiful by dev_hugepages on Tuesday July 29, 2025 @05:02AM (#44720913)
To do lazyness, you need to accumulate "intermediate computation objects" called thunks. These take space and time to store.

See: https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Thunk https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Performance/Strictn...