I guess inscrutable error messages are a "feature" of ML-like languages. I have not used OCaml yet, but the first few years with Haskell probably have been just

I guess inscrutable error messages are a "feature" of ML-like languages. I have not used OCaml yet, but the first few years with Haskell probably have been just as rough in terms of parsing type errors. Haskell has a few niceties when trying to debug type errors nowadays. For example typed holes that allows one to spice in `_` within code and the compiler will tell you what type it expects you to replace that hole with, alleviating many issues I had previously. But in the same sense I'm in agreement with you, and I've been more productive when writing Guile/Chicken Scheme code for small tools. Interestingly I've binged on OCaml videos recently, because I would find it interesting to work with it some day. From a distance what I like about it (aside from the functional language goodness) is that it supports objects, has row polymorphism, optional arguments, and imperative constructs (I sure like my mutation heavy for/while loops when prototyping code).