> “The biggest example I can think of is that OCaml uses let..in, which reminds you that every function is a statement. By contrast, the `;` in Reason hides tha

> “The biggest example I can think of is that OCaml uses let..in, which reminds you that every function is a statement. By contrast, the `;` in Reason hides that fact.” ... Except in OCaml modules/files where you don’t use “in”. OCaml still has “semicolons” for let bindings - but they are just spelled as “in” or “let () =“ depending on the the context. All but one of these “semicolon” forms have nothing to do with language semantics and are only used to help the parser figure out how to group bindings and values. It doesn’t make OCaml’s core semantics worse or better- though it might make it harder to learn initially or copy/paste code between different contexts. The point of ; in Reason is merely for consistency - to have exactly one way to form bindings whether you are in a module or expression, allowing you to copy paste lines between the two contexts. Compare that to OCaml which requires different syntax depending on the context and copying values from module bodies to expressions requires a lot of editing. There may be other ways to achieve the same kind of consistency without semicolons and we are open to them - just so long as they are consistent across all contexts and easy to learn. (And as long as they don’t have major foot guns like JS’s ASI). (Often people object to ; as a parsing separator because they think it means “side effect”. It doesn’t. Not in Reason. Not in OCaml. OCaml features ubiquitous use of semicolons for everything from arrays, lists, to records field separators, all things that have nothing to do with side effects. And if you still haven’t had your fill, there’s the ;; double semicolon - which actually does typically imply side effects).