4 ms·

Being an OCaml/F# fan, I find this comment amusing. Rust is in fact heavily influenced by functional languages, particularly OCaml - OCaml-style algebraic datat

Being an OCaml/F# fan, I find this comment amusing. Rust is in fact heavily influenced by functional languages, particularly OCaml - OCaml-style algebraic datatypes and pattern matching are huge advantages Rust brings over C++ in terms of reasoning about complex domain logic. And OCaml/F# both have variables which are immutable by default but can be labelled as mutable in (e.g.) performance-sensitive regions. So it's odd to say Rust "surpassed" what other functional languages have been doing for literally decades now. I almost think of Rust as a lower-level OCaml (faster and better support for memory management, but with somewhat weaker support for typeclasses and an inconvenient ADT syntax). An ML language you can conceivably write an OS in, but I would personally be nervous to write a complex finance application vs. OCaml. And of course Rust also has typeclasses, with a design strongly influenced by (but somewhat weaker than) Haskell. Monads and Readers are all over the shop in modern Rust precisely because they are so useful in modern Haskell. Basically, the reason why Rust is such a good low-level programming language is the reason that functional programming matters.

steveklabnik 7y ago
Fun fact: rust’s original implementation was in OCaml.
- jolux 7y ago
  I sometimes lament it's not more OCamlish, to be frank ;P Learning Rust inspired me to go learn OCaml. Not being a systems programmer and wanting pervasive garbage collection I don't want to go back now!
foldr 7y ago
OCaml's type system isn't capable of preventing shared mutable references. So you don't get the same compile-time safety guarantees in OCaml when you use mutation.
- brmgb 7y ago
  > you don't get the same compile-time safety guarantees in OCaml when you use mutation. OCaml is a garbage collected and mono-thread language. You obviously have the same guarantees in that you can't do what would be problematic. As a side note, a lot of the people currently writing Rust would ihmo be better served by Ocaml. You rarely need the protections Rust provides and they have a real complexity cost.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >OCaml is a garbage collected and mono-thread language. Well, yes, but that's the point. Rust gives you the same guarantees without limiting you to using a single thread or requiring you to use garbage collection. >You rarely need the protections Rust provides and they have a real complexity cost. Agreed.

steveklabnik 7y ago

Fun fact: rust’s original implementation was in OCaml.

jolux 7y ago
I sometimes lament it's not more OCamlish, to be frank ;P Learning Rust inspired me to go learn OCaml. Not being a systems programmer and wanting pervasive garbage collection I don't want to go back now!

foldr 7y ago

OCaml's type system isn't capable of preventing shared mutable references. So you don't get the same compile-time safety guarantees in OCaml when you use mutation.

brmgb 7y ago
> you don't get the same compile-time safety guarantees in OCaml when you use mutation. OCaml is a garbage collected and mono-thread language. You obviously have the same guarantees in that you can't do what would be problematic. As a side note, a lot of the people currently writing Rust would ihmo be better served by Ocaml. You rarely need the protections Rust provides and they have a real complexity cost.
- foldr 7y ago
  >OCaml is a garbage collected and mono-thread language. Well, yes, but that's the point. Rust gives you the same guarantees without limiting you to using a single thread or requiring you to use garbage collection. >You rarely need the protections Rust provides and they have a real complexity cost. Agreed.