4 ms·
>full of inconsistencies and bolted-on features that are practically useful but definitely not simple or elegantly designed Care to elaborate? What are you ref
by andrepd 6y ago
>full of inconsistencies and bolted-on features that are practically useful but definitely not simple or elegantly designed
Care to elaborate? What are you referring to?
- millimeterman 6y agoJust some examples: - First-class modules don't feel very first class, with how clunky it is to use modules at the value level - Records are very clunky and hacky to use - Generative functors are a hack - Special language-level equality magic is awful (although SML also has this problem) - Special `let` forms (whether via ppx or integrated into the language) feel really hacky - GADTs require too much handholding of the typechecker - All the "Objective" parts have very few redeeming qualities and should probably never have existed - The way infix operators work is really half-assed I don't think OCaml is a _bad_ language - it's very practically useful. It's just not simple or elegant.
- ernst_klim 6y agoWords like "clunky" and "hacky" are evaluation judgments, not objective criticism.