3 ms·

> OCaml introduces a bunch of problems which aren't present in Rust: cryptic syntax ... Hmm, I think "cryptic syntax" is probably in the eye of the beholder

• throwaway894345 4y ago
  I'm sure there's some element of subjectivity, but at a minimum there's something to be said for "unfamiliar to the overwhelming majority of programmers". I think it's also very likely that OCaml's incredibly terse syntax (and terse naming conventions) is objectively difficult to understand from a "how the human visual/symbolic processing pipeline works" perspective, but I don't have the data to back that up (I also don't think OCaml is alone in this regard).
  • int_19h 4y ago
    Thing is, if OCaml is terse and weird syntactically (and I would agree), then so is Rust. Especially once you have to spell out signatures.
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      Rust’s syntax is based on C and C++. Yes, it introduces additional concepts and gives them new syntax, but function calls, parameters, struct definitions, struct initializers, function definitions, etc are all very familiar to most programmers.