3 ms·

That might be true, but the converse is that even idiomatic Rust is extremely verbose and painful to the eyes. Ideally, you'd be able to write mostly OCaml (hi

by tomp 7y ago

That might be true, but the converse is that even idiomatic Rust is extremely verbose and painful to the eyes. Ideally, you'd be able to write mostly OCaml (higher level, closures, polymorphism, GC) and Rust (safe manual memory management) only when needed.

k__ 7y ago
I think coming from JavaScript, the wins in writing Rust are much bigger than coming from OCaml. So, as a JavaScript developer, I currently favor Rust instead of OCaml.
pjmlp 7y ago
Which will be possible when algebraic types get integrated into OCaml, part of the work has already been integrated due to the ongoing multi-core changes.
- tomp 7y ago
  You mean algebraic effects? Can you link to more about how the specifically enable better memory management? I always though that would require linear types (at least Rust-like memory management - I see how effects would enable memory-pool / stack-like memory management).
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Yes, sorry about the error. Here are some papers about it, https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/ocaml-multicore/wiki https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/ocaml-multicore/wiki https://github.com/ocamllabs/ocaml-effects-tutorial https://github.com/ocamllabs/ocaml-effects-tutorial
    - tomp 7y ago
      I can't find any details on memory management (except regarding multicore GC, which is not user-facing changes AFAIK).
- yawaramin 6y ago
  It's already possible, there's https://github.com/zshipko/ocaml-rs https://github.com/zshipko/ocaml-rs