3 ms·
Do you mean it makes it really hard for you or in general? If in general... do you know about Jane Street? From Wikipedia: > Jane Street [...] adopted OCaml a
by the_af 5y ago
Do you mean it makes it really hard for you or in general?
If in general... do you know about Jane Street? From Wikipedia:
> Jane Street [...] adopted OCaml as its main programming language early on because the language's functional programming style and clear expressiveness made it possible for code reviews to be performed by traders who were not programmers, to verify that high-performance code would do what it was intended to do. [...] "OCaml helps us to quickly adapt to changing market conditions, and go from prototypes to production systems with less effort"
Doesn't seem like either research or fooling around to me! Those sound like actual, pragmatic, business-related benefits!
- turminal 5y ago> Do you mean it makes it really hard for you or in general? I don't think I'm exactly alone, but there's definitely lots of people that would disagree. I know about Jane Street and I admire they manage to do so, but I also think lots of security issues occur because the language/system/library/framework in use is not well understood and Ocaml makes that particularly hard in my opinion. And I'm not talking about the "functional programming is hard" problem, because I don't find it harder than other paradigms I tried. I'm talking about the quality of the docs and the speed with which the language evolves.
- the_af 5y agoRe: the docs, I find your assertion puzzling, or at least, incompatible with this quote: > [OCaml's] clear expressiveness made it possible for code reviews to be performed [at Jane Street] by traders who were not programmers If OCaml was a mess, difficult to understand, or had terrible docs, what the quote describes just wouldn't be possible. Non-programmers doing code reviews! What could be more pragmatic than that?