3 ms·
Pure naked grab at more users. I don't mean to imply there any anything better about Go's runtime at all.
by Ericson2314 5y ago
Pure naked grab at more users. I don't mean to imply there any anything better about Go's runtime at all.
- yawaramin 5y agoIn any case, if a large number of users is what you're after, you'd target Java ( http://www.ocamljava.org/ http://www.ocamljava.org/ ) or JavaScript ( https://rescript-lang.org/ https://rescript-lang.org/ , http://ocsigen.org/js_of_ocaml/latest/manual/overview http://ocsigen.org/js_of_ocaml/latest/manual/overview ).
- Ericson2314 5y agoYes, those are fine ones to do too.
- edwintorok 5y agoIn that case interoperability with Go libraries might be better: just running on the same runtime wouldn't bring many advantages (other than having a single GC instead of 2) without being able to easily call libraries written in another language. (Although TBH I'd run them as 2 separate processes and have them communicate via some form of RPC, OCaml would just need good integration with <insert-favourite-GO-rpc> protocol)
- Ericson2314 5y agoRPC is dramatically less powerful than than FFI. No sharing of state is a serious limitation.
- pjmlp 5y agoThere are ways to share state over RPC.
- geodel 5y agoAgree. If Ocaml add 10 more users, it would more than double its users in the world. Also it is never too late to remind everyone again that JaneStreet uses Ocaml. If Go were any good JS would have used that.