4 ms·

I haven't ever written any OCaml, but I thought it has separate operators for ints and floats. I've written some SML and it has some special hacks to allow over

I haven't ever written any OCaml, but I thought it has separate operators for ints and floats. I've written some SML and it has some special hacks to allow overloading on built-in operators. While I do understand that ML style modules are theoretically more powerful than Haskell's typeclasses, they always struck me as much clunkier for everyday use (that's why I personally consider ML family and Haskell family as separate - the approach to ad-hoc polymorphism is an important difference in my opinion)

ernst_klim 7y ago
> they always struck me as much clunkier for everyday use They are simply explicit. What's so clunky about modular implicits, for example? Personally, I prefer explicit modules and hate typeclasses, because I can't look at the code and say if this operation is a primitive operator or some dynamically dispatched class method. Besides, modules are way more powerful, and have a way broader use. They can encapsulate state, types, can be parametric etc.