4 ms·

Do you have any examples? Unfortunately from my perspective, I cannot make sense of your statements. OCaml typing is principal in all situation where type infe

Do you have any examples? Unfortunately from my perspective, I cannot make sense of your statements. OCaml typing is principal in all situation where type inference is decidable. The syntax for annotation for polymorphic functions is isomorphic between OCaml and Haskell. If I take a random module in the standard library, let's say Array, 95% of the functions in this module are parametric polymorphic. I am thus genuinely puzzled by your statement that "OCaml programmers almost never write polymorphic functions".

wyager 4y ago
I wrote up a bunch of grievance examples for a blog post I never got around to publishing, but I'm traveling at the moment so can't pull up my laptop. I'll see if I can find them later. > The syntax for annotation for polymorphic functions is isomorphic between OCaml and Haskell. Sorry, but total bullshit. I had to use these pieces of shit all the time. https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/locallyabstract.html https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/locallyabstract.html > If I take a random module in the standard library, let's say Array As I specifically called out, all the core data structures are polymorphic. (Let's not talk about the float array hack; is that still around?) It's so annoying that pretty much every other library is monomorphic or functorized. > I am thus genuinely puzzled by your statement that "OCaml programmers almost never write polymorphic functions". Not sure what to tell you man. I spent 4 years reading & writing ocaml and 95% of the code that would have been polymorphic in haskell (because it would be easy/free) was either monomorphic or (multiple layers of) functors. Many/most of the devs I worked with (great devs with years of OCaml experience) didn't even know what LATs were, let alone used them, which means they were almost certainly not writing polymorphic code which "did anything" with the type. The only polymorphic code that you can write in ocaml without such things are functorial (in the categorical sense, not the ocaml sense). Arrays, map values, that's about it.
- octachron 4y ago
  > Sorry, but total bullshit. Ok, locally abstract types are bit weird and historical quirk due to the pre-existing use of type variables as unification type variables. But first, they only matter with GADTs and local modules (a notion that doesn't exist in Haskell). And the good syntax for polymorphic function with GADTs is `type a. a monoid -> a` which requires just one explicit quantification compared to the Haskell variant. So no, Haskell and OCaml type annotations are isomorphic. > As I specifically called out, all the core data structures are polymorphic. I took a totally random module from the standard library! Let me another random module after rolling a dice, Atomic. Here only 66% of the functions are polymorphics. Or do you want me to go to another library? Ok, let's go for container, and let's select another random module CCPair: 100% of the functions are polymorphic. Honestly, I struggle to understand how it is possible to conclude that every OCaml library is monomorphic. What do you mean by LATs? The Haskell wiki doesn't seem to know that term. > The only polymorphic code that you can write in ocaml without such things are functorial I am sorry to ask but are you confusing bounded polymorphism with parametric polymorphism?
  - wyager 4y ago
    > they only matter with GADTs and local modules Local modules (assuming this means e.g. a module passed in as a function argument, constrained to have one of its types match the type of another argument) are how you write non-trivial polymorphic code. > Atomic ... CCPair More functors (in haskell terminology) - code that doesn't do anything interesting with the type parameter. > What do you mean by LAT Locally abstract type > I am sorry to ask but are you confusing bounded polymorphism with parametric polymorphism? Bounded polymorphism is an application of parametric polymorphism. Not sure what you are asking here. Possibly this will clarify my line of thought: I consider parametrically polymorphic code without any bounds to be "uninteresting"/"trivial", because either the code must treat the polymorphic type completely opaquely (leading to trivial functorial [in the haskell sense] operations like implementing fmap), or requiring you to explicitly pass in all supported operations on the instantiated type (basically requiring you to implement bounding by hand). I think this may be a blub paradox thing, where the set of useful applications of PP is much more restricted in ocaml, to the point where ocamlers do not even consider what they are missing. A haskell or rust programmer would likely run into these semantic blocks quickly upon trying ocaml.
    - octachron 4y ago
      Ok, you are using "parametric polymorphism" to mean bounded polymorphism. This explain my confusion! Indeed, I can understand your point of view then: bounded polymorphism is indeed better done with functors in OCaml. And since functor are syntactically heavy in OCaml there are not used everywhere and only when they are useful. Which doesn't mean that they are not used at all, as the Mirage project can attest. MirageOS is essentially an Operating System build upon OCaml functors.
      - wyager 4y ago
        I don't really consider those separate things. Bounded polymorphism is parametric polymorphism, plus a type subset relationship. A quick sanity check on wikipedia is consistent with this model. BP is PP plus what's required to make it more than a toy I remember one annoyance I had with ocaml was the effective inability to use point-free style. I can't remember what limitation was behind this; do you know off the top of your head? Edit: it's the "value restriction", more annoying bullshit I forgot about! Huge limitation for polymorphic ocaml code.

wyager 4y ago

I wrote up a bunch of grievance examples for a blog post I never got around to publishing, but I'm traveling at the moment so can't pull up my laptop. I'll see if I can find them later. > The syntax for annotation for polymorphic functions is isomorphic between OCaml and Haskell. Sorry, but total bullshit. I had to use these pieces of shit all the time. https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/locallyabstract.html https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/locallyabstract.html > If I take a random module in the standard library, let's say Array As I specifically called out, all the core data structures are polymorphic. (Let's not talk about the float array hack; is that still around?) It's so annoying that pretty much every other library is monomorphic or functorized. > I am thus genuinely puzzled by your statement that "OCaml programmers almost never write polymorphic functions". Not sure what to tell you man. I spent 4 years reading & writing ocaml and 95% of the code that would have been polymorphic in haskell (because it would be easy/free) was either monomorphic or (multiple layers of) functors. Many/most of the devs I worked with (great devs with years of OCaml experience) didn't even know what LATs were, let alone used them, which means they were almost certainly not writing polymorphic code which "did anything" with the type. The only polymorphic code that you can write in ocaml without such things are functorial (in the categorical sense, not the ocaml sense). Arrays, map values, that's about it.

octachron 4y ago
> Sorry, but total bullshit. Ok, locally abstract types are bit weird and historical quirk due to the pre-existing use of type variables as unification type variables. But first, they only matter with GADTs and local modules (a notion that doesn't exist in Haskell). And the good syntax for polymorphic function with GADTs is `type a. a monoid -> a` which requires just one explicit quantification compared to the Haskell variant. So no, Haskell and OCaml type annotations are isomorphic. > As I specifically called out, all the core data structures are polymorphic. I took a totally random module from the standard library! Let me another random module after rolling a dice, Atomic. Here only 66% of the functions are polymorphics. Or do you want me to go to another library? Ok, let's go for container, and let's select another random module CCPair: 100% of the functions are polymorphic. Honestly, I struggle to understand how it is possible to conclude that every OCaml library is monomorphic. What do you mean by LATs? The Haskell wiki doesn't seem to know that term. > The only polymorphic code that you can write in ocaml without such things are functorial I am sorry to ask but are you confusing bounded polymorphism with parametric polymorphism?
- wyager 4y ago
  > they only matter with GADTs and local modules Local modules (assuming this means e.g. a module passed in as a function argument, constrained to have one of its types match the type of another argument) are how you write non-trivial polymorphic code. > Atomic ... CCPair More functors (in haskell terminology) - code that doesn't do anything interesting with the type parameter. > What do you mean by LAT Locally abstract type > I am sorry to ask but are you confusing bounded polymorphism with parametric polymorphism? Bounded polymorphism is an application of parametric polymorphism. Not sure what you are asking here. Possibly this will clarify my line of thought: I consider parametrically polymorphic code without any bounds to be "uninteresting"/"trivial", because either the code must treat the polymorphic type completely opaquely (leading to trivial functorial [in the haskell sense] operations like implementing fmap), or requiring you to explicitly pass in all supported operations on the instantiated type (basically requiring you to implement bounding by hand). I think this may be a blub paradox thing, where the set of useful applications of PP is much more restricted in ocaml, to the point where ocamlers do not even consider what they are missing. A haskell or rust programmer would likely run into these semantic blocks quickly upon trying ocaml.
  - octachron 4y ago
    Ok, you are using "parametric polymorphism" to mean bounded polymorphism. This explain my confusion! Indeed, I can understand your point of view then: bounded polymorphism is indeed better done with functors in OCaml. And since functor are syntactically heavy in OCaml there are not used everywhere and only when they are useful. Which doesn't mean that they are not used at all, as the Mirage project can attest. MirageOS is essentially an Operating System build upon OCaml functors.
    - wyager 4y ago
      I don't really consider those separate things. Bounded polymorphism is parametric polymorphism, plus a type subset relationship. A quick sanity check on wikipedia is consistent with this model. BP is PP plus what's required to make it more than a toy I remember one annoyance I had with ocaml was the effective inability to use point-free style. I can't remember what limitation was behind this; do you know off the top of your head? Edit: it's the "value restriction", more annoying bullshit I forgot about! Huge limitation for polymorphic ocaml code.