fully functional, so as powerful as Haskell, Lisp, Scala, ... but way easier to learn syntactically

> fully functional, so as powerful as Haskell, Lisp, Scala, ... but way easier to learn syntactically
> functional yet OO and imperative too, thus multipurpose and easy to use for dirty stuff when needed
> strong code checking tools (merlin) and build tools (dune, ocamlbuild)
> very high level yet quite efficient when compiled (similar to Go, Lisp, F#, Haskell, under 10x C execution time)
> one of the best type systems out in the wild
> used for compilers, finance programming, proof assistants, and more
> good C foreign function interface
Redpill me on OCaml, what are your thoughts ?

Attached: ocaml_logo.png (1872x1872, 214K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gallium.inria.fr/blog/intel-skylake-bug/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>no thread parallelism
it belongs in a museum of trash

It actually has thread parallelism, both green threads (Thread module in the standard library) and native threads (Unix module, which basically links the language to the whole Unix library)

>as powerful as Haskell
Lol no purity nor typeclasses.
Multicore OCaml is vaporware and concurrency is not parallelism with shared memory.

is there any solid jit implementation in ocaml?

> no purity
Purity is actually a choice, you can choose not to use references or arrays, and use immutable maps instead of mutable hashtables for example.
> concurrency
This is currently one of the only points I can agree with, multicore OCaml is not mature yet.

You can compile to bytecode and run everything in the REPL if you want to, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking.

Sml

Easier to learn "syntactically" than lisp? Go somewhere else with your bullshit

Attached: 1554935223492.jpg (770x470, 63K)

functional programming is just for noobs who have a wet dream about coding without actually programming: if i tells pc just use function i do not needs to implements function *absolutely genius*

and all college professors are wanksters jerking of telling each other that functional programming will eraicate world hunger and bing peace

all hail haskell and don't forget to eat your curry amen

this but switch lisp and ocaml

also btfos intel

gallium.inria.fr/blog/intel-skylake-bug/

I failed to write program without syntax errors too often
the project management tools are shit

just use f# s m h

>GIL

>Redpill me on OCaml, what are your thoughts ?
useless in the real world

MyCaml

good compromise ML that covers basically every single paradigm well enough but has a shitty stdlib and is basically only developed and used by Jane Street. Ultimately it's the base for the Rust language which would be apparent to anyone who used OCaml and rust. Just use rust instead unless you really need the ML-y functionalism

>Redpill me on OCaml, what are your thoughts ?
Unfortunately I don't bootstrap compilers very often, so I don't get to use it for non-meme applications.

>functional
Sorry i like to do actual work

then you'd like ocaml.

Lisp is only S-expressions, thus has no ambiguity, I agree. But you have to admit it is really hard to understand at a first glance, you need to use the language to be able to read it. It's not as easy as understanding C# when you've done a bit of Java before, for example.

t. procedural retard who never tried other paradigms

A bunch of insults, not a single clever argument.

Functional languages are harder to make efficient than dirty programs with global variables and side effects everywhere, but with under 10x C, it's quite enjoyable. Working with higher-order functions, ADT, GADT, and modules or typeclasses, you get a language with the highest level of reasoning, and still a really nice performance. And once you've used functional programming, it's hard to go back. Even very popular languages such as Java and C++ are adopting concepts like options or streams in their latest standards.

> Just use rust instead unless you really need the ML-y functionalism
Fun how people tend to turn it the other way around. The fact is, "functionalism" eases your day, you end up writing shorter and nicer code, in a shorter time too, whereas you don't always need performance.

Just use OCaml unless you really need to fight with the compiler for hours for (C/C++)-like performance

True, imo it is one of the only fully functional languages that still lets you do almost whatever you want to do.

basically OCaml + .NET library, with an even smaller and less active community. A nice language though, the updates are showing that some guys at Microsoft are still keeping the thing alive, and the total interoperability with C# makes it compatible with a lot of projects, which allows a functional guy to work in the same team as a C# fanboi who has never written a List.map in his life. I think I'm going to give it a shot one day.

>really hard to understand at a first glance
Only if you've had to shove your head through OOP for years.
Once you start getting a bit into any programming language and have to think about ASTs, any lisp becomes natural and quite pleasant.
user, on top of that, consider people like Rich Hicky (Clojure's creator) who started out with Java, C++ and C# and once he actually learned Lisp realized "we've been doing it all wrong"
When real developers with two brain cells to rub together get their hands on any functional language they have the time of their life.