3 ms·
While OCaml might be the most reasonable in theory, AFAIK opam on Windows still doesn't work. Also its standard library is too minimal for my liking.
by stewbrew 9y ago
While OCaml might be the most reasonable in theory, AFAIK opam on Windows still doesn't work. Also its standard library is too minimal for my liking.
- loup-vaillant 9y agoUser catnaroek was only talking about support for Functional programming. And they're right: it's hard to reasonably support typed functional programming without sum types. And we're talking about a language dammit, not libraries or package managers. Let's have a good language first, then build the tools around it.
- catnaroek 9y agoIt's even worse: it's hard to reasonably support functional programming, typed or untyped, when list and tree values aren't directly expressible in the language's semantics. If you need a social convention not to query physical object identities, you have already lost.
- catnaroek 9y agoThe lack of a good standard library can always be fixed: write one. OTOH, language semantics issues can't be fixed without redefining the language, invalidating all code that has already been written in it.