3 ms·

Why O'Caml is not my favorite programming language (2007)

27 points by gnosis 16y ago

btilly 16y ago
The title should be edited to say that it is from 2007.
sanxiyn 16y ago
Here is another one: http://www.brool.com/index.php/the-genius-of-python-the-agony-of-ocaml http://www.brool.com/index.php/the-genius-of-python-the-agon...
- rwmj 16y ago
  Yawn ... The syntax of OCaml is tremendously regular once you understand it (and the examples he gives there are using the toplevel which indicates he's not used it very much). Compare the syntax of OCaml (and ML in general) for: (1) defining functions (2) defining ordinary variables (3) static variables (4) variables scoped to two functions with the same for your favourite imperative/OO language. Here's the OCaml syntax: (1) let f x = ... (2) let v = ... (3) let f = let v = ... in let f () = ... in f (4) let f, g = let v = ... in let f () = ... in let g () = ... in f, g
- awarzzkktsyfj 16y ago
  ... from 2006
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rwmj 16y ago
The author of the article only spent about 5 minutes with the language, not enough time to find out about delimited overloading (http://pa-do.forge.ocamlcore.org/ http://pa-do.forge.ocamlcore.org/). Update: Ignore the above, pa_do is from 2008. Nevertheless focusing on a single feature of the language is a good reason to reject the entire thing? Even when it's like that for solid performance reasons -- ie. you want to know what integer type you are using because it greatly affects how fast your program will run.
- Flow 16y ago
  Doesn't sound like you read the article IMHO.
- limmeau 16y ago
  The article is from 2007, the syntax extension you mention is from GSoC 2008. And I think it's legitimate to attack a language's out-of-the box features even if someone somewhere has written an optional parser extension to address the problems.
fleitz 16y ago
My preferred alternative to OCaml is definitely F#. The stdlib rocks and it has all the type inferred goodness of OCaml.
- MichaelGG 16y ago
  To compare, in F# you'd have: > let add3 x = x + 3 val add3 : int -> int Plain numeric literals are int (32-bit integer). To make it generic: > let inline add3 x = - let one = LanguagePrimitives.GenericOne in x + one + one + one;; val inline add3 : ^a -> ^e when ( ^a or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^a * ^b -> ^c) and ^b : (static member get_One : -> ^b) and ( ^c or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^c * ^b -> ^d) and ( ^d or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^d * ^b -> ^e) Perhaps not pretty, but inlining provides a quick way around some limitations on generics. While strings are not arrays, they are sequences (IEnumerable in .NET). Sequences can be infinite, so there's no Seq.reverse. But: > "hello" |> Seq.toArray |> Array.rev ;; val it : char [] = [|'o'; 'l'; 'l'; 'e'; 'h'|]
jpr 16y ago
From the comments: > If you want an easy-to-use dynamic programming language, there are plenty better choices than Lisp Huh, is there some new dynamic language that has completely slipped under my radar?
gm 16y ago
Why do I care about why someone did not like a certain language 4 years ago?
- swah 16y ago
  Caml didn't change much in the last 4 years, so it could potentially interesting blog post. Its not, though.

27 points by gnosis 16y ago

The title should be edited to say that it is from 2007.

Here is another one: http://www.brool.com/index.php/the-genius-of-python-the-agony-of-ocaml http://www.brool.com/index.php/the-genius-of-python-the-agon...

rwmj 16y ago
Yawn ... The syntax of OCaml is tremendously regular once you understand it (and the examples he gives there are using the toplevel which indicates he's not used it very much). Compare the syntax of OCaml (and ML in general) for: (1) defining functions (2) defining ordinary variables (3) static variables (4) variables scoped to two functions with the same for your favourite imperative/OO language. Here's the OCaml syntax: (1) let f x = ... (2) let v = ... (3) let f = let v = ... in let f () = ... in f (4) let f, g = let v = ... in let f () = ... in let g () = ... in f, g
awarzzkktsyfj 16y ago
... from 2006

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

rwmj 16y ago

The author of the article only spent about 5 minutes with the language, not enough time to find out about delimited overloading (http://pa-do.forge.ocamlcore.org/ http://pa-do.forge.ocamlcore.org/). Update: Ignore the above, pa_do is from 2008. Nevertheless focusing on a single feature of the language is a good reason to reject the entire thing? Even when it's like that for solid performance reasons -- ie. you want to know what integer type you are using because it greatly affects how fast your program will run.

Flow 16y ago
Doesn't sound like you read the article IMHO.
limmeau 16y ago
The article is from 2007, the syntax extension you mention is from GSoC 2008. And I think it's legitimate to attack a language's out-of-the box features even if someone somewhere has written an optional parser extension to address the problems.

fleitz 16y ago

My preferred alternative to OCaml is definitely F#. The stdlib rocks and it has all the type inferred goodness of OCaml.

MichaelGG 16y ago
To compare, in F# you'd have: > let add3 x = x + 3 val add3 : int -> int Plain numeric literals are int (32-bit integer). To make it generic: > let inline add3 x = - let one = LanguagePrimitives.GenericOne in x + one + one + one;; val inline add3 : ^a -> ^e when ( ^a or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^a * ^b -> ^c) and ^b : (static member get_One : -> ^b) and ( ^c or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^c * ^b -> ^d) and ( ^d or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^d * ^b -> ^e) Perhaps not pretty, but inlining provides a quick way around some limitations on generics. While strings are not arrays, they are sequences (IEnumerable in .NET). Sequences can be infinite, so there's no Seq.reverse. But: > "hello" |> Seq.toArray |> Array.rev ;; val it : char [] = [|'o'; 'l'; 'l'; 'e'; 'h'|]

jpr 16y ago

From the comments: > If you want an easy-to-use dynamic programming language, there are plenty better choices than Lisp Huh, is there some new dynamic language that has completely slipped under my radar?

gm 16y ago

Why do I care about why someone did not like a certain language 4 years ago?

swah 16y ago
Caml didn't change much in the last 4 years, so it could potentially interesting blog post. Its not, though.