5 ms·
Hey, so when Ocaml comes out with modular implicits (hopefully soon!), will they be supported? If I recall correctly, Bucklescript is compiling Ocaml source, a
by jnbiche 10y ago
Hey, so when Ocaml comes out with modular implicits (hopefully soon!), will they be supported? If I recall correctly, Bucklescript is compiling Ocaml source, as opposed to Ocaml bytecode like js_of_ocaml does [this is incorrect, see below]. Assuming this is the case, I'd guess the downside is you have to specifically work to support potentially complex new features like modular implicits.
I think between modular implicits[0], multicore support (both coming soon), along with BuckleScript and js_of_ocaml, Ocaml will be the functional language to beat in the coming years.
0. For those unfamiliar with modular implicits (Scala has them), they are kind of like type classes, so we won't have to write things like "print_string" or "print_int" anymore; we can just write "print".
Edit: NEvermind, I see you're compiling the lambda IR. So hopefully support for modular implicits will be automatic!
- hongbo_zhang 10y agowe still reuse ocaml's compiler tool chain. we are compiling ocaml's lambda into JS. so yes, we will support modular implicit once it is landed
- sjrd 10y ago> I think between modular implicits[0], multicore support (both coming soon), along with BuckleScript and js_of_ocaml, Ocaml will be the functional language to beat in the coming years. Since you mentioned Scala ... you realize Scala has had those properties for years, don't you?
- jnbiche 10y agoYes, true. I'm probably overstating things. Just excited about the prospect of having these things in Ocaml. Scala is an impressive language but it's a big language. I prefer the relative simplicity of Ocaml and (even more) SML. Also, performance-wise, with multicore and the new optimizations with flambda, Ocaml will be particularly interesting.