3 ms·
> 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 kno
by 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?