> And for instance, Janestreet's idiom udes labelled arguments as often as possible. So you have to give up to one of pillars of the functional programming par

> And for instance, Janestreet's idiom udes labelled arguments as often as possible. So you have to give up to one of pillars of the functional programming paradigm and you get a less elegant but more practical programming language. Otherwise I agree that using labeled arguments is mostly fine and doesn't completely spoil the language. The more serious compromise to the functional programming paradigm is the fact that you need to use mutable variables and imperative style programming. Once you do this you lose most of the elegance and attractiveness of functional programming. > Similarly, I am not sure what is the issue with using imperative OCaml for imperative algorithms when they are a better fit for the problem at hand? What I mean is that for any moderately complex application you need to switch to imperative style so the appeal of OCaml is mostly lost. You better choose a programming language that is designed for imperative programming since the beginning. The arguments I am giving explains why there are practically no real world applications done in OCaml. Some people insist using OCaml because they love the elegance of the language and I understand them but reality is it doesn't scale to complex applications. For people in Janestreet I think this is a sort of niche where they get an added value from OCaml thanks to its superior typing system and compile-time detection of many errors. I guess they care really a lot about the business logic of their applications and OCaml shines to ensure it is correct so for them the advantages out-weights the inconveniences.