He's probably referring to the fact that you have to use different arithmetic operators for int and float in OCaml, so it would have to be 1.0 +. 2.0

Ah, that makes sense. It's still the case, but I guess it may be going away once implicits are released.

I think he's talking about the fact that OCaml has separate operators for floating point (i.e. in his example, you'd use 1.0 +. 2.0).

Yep, that's <float><int><float> and doesn't typecheck since you missed it too, my point is made :)

Yeah. Honestly it's a quirk, but I prefer quirks going this way than the other way (like universal compare). That said, all languages have warts. And that's the best kind of warts, the one that is explicit and happens at compile-time.

Good point. And to be honest, OCaml was the first language I used to have insanely fast compile times - and a REPL!