5 ms·

If you've been away from Ocaml for a while, this would be a great time to check out what's changed. A package manager, a new optimizer, and we'll soon have mod

If you've been away from Ocaml for a while, this would be a great time to check out what's changed. A package manager, a new optimizer, and we'll soon have modular implicits (think Haskell-style type classes, but better) and multicore. Ocaml is really a first-rate programming language and I wish more people knew about it.

clw8 10y ago
Oh shit. I came here to ask if this was the release with multicore. Have you tested it for real-world performance enhancement?
- cm3 10y ago
  Multicore will take more time before it's stable, but it will be available via opam as another alternative OCaml toolchain until then. It's basically the result of KC's research: http://kcsrk.info/ http://kcsrk.info/
  - jordwalke 10y ago
    Note that multicore includes two separate "features": the algebraic effects abstractions, and the multi-core runtime (domain heaps). From what I understand, OCaml's multi-core effort will include both of these as well as some improvements to garbage collection.
    - sgrove 10y ago
      It's hard to say which is more exciting for me, but it probably comes down to effect handlers in a production-capable (if not production-ready) language that can work across different compilation target. Lots of interesting tooling that can be built on top of that!
krat0sprakhar 10y ago
If I'm not mistaken, this release is not the multicore release[0]. Also, if anyone's keen on reading the paper behind modular implicits in OCaml, its a fun read - http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01895 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01895 [0] - https://blogs.janestreet.com/flambda/#comment-39958 https://blogs.janestreet.com/flambda/#comment-39958
- pauldirac137 10y ago
  Correct. Multicore _may_ come in 4.04 if we're lucky. No ETA for modular implicits AFAICT, but I really want them ASAP; they will be a game-changer.
sdegutis 10y ago
Any time I want to look further into OCaml, it's because the purist in me wants a better language than the ones I'm already using. And it always comes down to Haskell vs OCaml for me, and Haskell always wins out because OCaml has lots of edge cases built into the language and the standard library that they justify and excuse rather than deprecating and cleaning up. Then again, Haskell also has Prelude. But it feels like OCaml has way more legacy cruft.
- Buttons840 10y ago
  I was prompted to try an OCaml tutorial by this HN post. I soon saw that strings and numbers each have a different print function. Is this part of the cruft you mention? Why have two print functions?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - djur 10y ago
    When it comes to functions, there's ad hoc polymorphism, and there's parametric polymorphism. Parametric polymorphism is when you can define a function without knowing the precise type of its parameters. However, this limits what you can actually do with the parameters. For instance, a function concat([a], [a]) -> [a] which takes two lists containing items of type "a" knows enough about the type of its parameters (they're lists) to do its job, but it doesn't know everything about them. This is the type of polymorphism OCaml supports. Think of it as "one implementation, many types". That's why OCaml has more than one print function, and why it has integer and floating point versions of operators like + and *. Ad hoc polymorphism is when you can define implementations for a single function for whatever types you like. So you can implement add(Int, Int) -> Int, as well as add(Float, Float) -> Float. So this is "many implementations, many types." Haskell supports a version of this through typeclasses. OCaml doesn't currently support it, but the new "modular implicits" feature, as I understand it, will provide largely the same functionality.
    - harrisi 10y ago

clw8 10y ago

Oh shit. I came here to ask if this was the release with multicore. Have you tested it for real-world performance enhancement?

cm3 10y ago
Multicore will take more time before it's stable, but it will be available via opam as another alternative OCaml toolchain until then. It's basically the result of KC's research: http://kcsrk.info/ http://kcsrk.info/
- jordwalke 10y ago
  Note that multicore includes two separate "features": the algebraic effects abstractions, and the multi-core runtime (domain heaps). From what I understand, OCaml's multi-core effort will include both of these as well as some improvements to garbage collection.
  - sgrove 10y ago
    It's hard to say which is more exciting for me, but it probably comes down to effect handlers in a production-capable (if not production-ready) language that can work across different compilation target. Lots of interesting tooling that can be built on top of that!

krat0sprakhar 10y ago

If I'm not mistaken, this release is not the multicore release[0]. Also, if anyone's keen on reading the paper behind modular implicits in OCaml, its a fun read - http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01895 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01895 [0] - https://blogs.janestreet.com/flambda/#comment-39958 https://blogs.janestreet.com/flambda/#comment-39958

pauldirac137 10y ago
Correct. Multicore _may_ come in 4.04 if we're lucky. No ETA for modular implicits AFAICT, but I really want them ASAP; they will be a game-changer.

sdegutis 10y ago

Any time I want to look further into OCaml, it's because the purist in me wants a better language than the ones I'm already using. And it always comes down to Haskell vs OCaml for me, and Haskell always wins out because OCaml has lots of edge cases built into the language and the standard library that they justify and excuse rather than deprecating and cleaning up. Then again, Haskell also has Prelude. But it feels like OCaml has way more legacy cruft.

Buttons840 10y ago
I was prompted to try an OCaml tutorial by this HN post. I soon saw that strings and numbers each have a different print function. Is this part of the cruft you mention? Why have two print functions?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- djur 10y ago
  When it comes to functions, there's ad hoc polymorphism, and there's parametric polymorphism. Parametric polymorphism is when you can define a function without knowing the precise type of its parameters. However, this limits what you can actually do with the parameters. For instance, a function concat([a], [a]) -> [a] which takes two lists containing items of type "a" knows enough about the type of its parameters (they're lists) to do its job, but it doesn't know everything about them. This is the type of polymorphism OCaml supports. Think of it as "one implementation, many types". That's why OCaml has more than one print function, and why it has integer and floating point versions of operators like + and *. Ad hoc polymorphism is when you can define implementations for a single function for whatever types you like. So you can implement add(Int, Int) -> Int, as well as add(Float, Float) -> Float. So this is "many implementations, many types." Haskell supports a version of this through typeclasses. OCaml doesn't currently support it, but the new "modular implicits" feature, as I understand it, will provide largely the same functionality.
  - harrisi 10y ago