3 ms·
I general I agree with your broader point about when to select dynamic language, flow state etc., and specifically with C, C++, Rust (although of those I haven’
by chromatin 6y ago
I general I agree with your broader point about when to select dynamic language, flow state etc., and specifically with C, C++, Rust (although of those I haven’t done C++ in years except to tweak others’ code). However I find D can be written in a very script like manner, using the GC. Only when chasing performance do I need to go GC-free. The fast compilation means I can iterate as fast as python, and it has replaced a lot of python in our group.
Side note,I would like to learn OCaml and am interested you drew a distinction between Haskell (former group) and OCaml (latter group).
- pdimitar 6y agoCheck here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24809623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24809623 (sibling comment).
- eru 6y agoOCaml and Haskell share a common ancestry, but I would also draw a distinction between them. (Though not the same that the other commenter did.) OCaml is a bit more of a drop-in replacement for something like C++ or D. Mostly because it's strict by default, so it's easier to reason about performance even for a non-expert user. OCaml's approach to side-effects has now entered the mainstream: it's considered good style to avoid them, but they are still used pervasively. That's very similar to what good modern C++, Java, Python etc style advocates. Of course, Haskell also allows side-effects. But generally, you track that they are occurring with the type system, you generally stick them in some kind of Monad or Applicative Functor.