3 ms·

Ok, you are using "parametric polymorphism" to mean bounded polymorphism. This explain my confusion! Indeed, I can understand your point of view then: bounded p

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.
- yawaramin 4y ago
  > BP is PP plus what's required to make it more than a toy And in fact OCaml does have BP, as was explained earlier, just with a heavier syntax. > effective inability to use point-free style OK but point-free style is not an end in itself, it's just a means to an end (clean code), and there's certainly no universal agreement that it's the best means...explicit style is almost always easier to understand for a wide assortment of people and doesn't require mental backflips trying to figure out the weird heiroglyphics of '(.) (.) (.)' etc. etc. > Huge limitation for polymorphic ocaml code. Yeah I can see how writing e.g. let f x = g [] x As opposed to let f = g [] Is such a deal-breaker. /s
  - wyager 4y ago
    > just with a heavier syntax. Ok, I'm glad we agree on that. > I can see how writing Eta reduction is one example, but a great deal of code is cleanly expressed as e.g. vecLen = sum . map (^2) And ocaml's type system is not capable of handling this gracefully. Very unfortunate!
    - yawaramin 4y ago
      ? let vec_len vec = vec |> map (fun x -> x ** 2.) |> sum Or even let square x = x ** 2. let vec_len vec = vec |> map square |> sum Honestly, if code like this is the biggest nitpick, I have a hard time taking the argument seriously.

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.

yawaramin 4y ago
> BP is PP plus what's required to make it more than a toy And in fact OCaml does have BP, as was explained earlier, just with a heavier syntax. > effective inability to use point-free style OK but point-free style is not an end in itself, it's just a means to an end (clean code), and there's certainly no universal agreement that it's the best means...explicit style is almost always easier to understand for a wide assortment of people and doesn't require mental backflips trying to figure out the weird heiroglyphics of '(.) (.) (.)' etc. etc. > Huge limitation for polymorphic ocaml code. Yeah I can see how writing e.g. let f x = g [] x As opposed to let f = g [] Is such a deal-breaker. /s
- wyager 4y ago
  > just with a heavier syntax. Ok, I'm glad we agree on that. > I can see how writing Eta reduction is one example, but a great deal of code is cleanly expressed as e.g. vecLen = sum . map (^2) And ocaml's type system is not capable of handling this gracefully. Very unfortunate!
  - yawaramin 4y ago
    ? let vec_len vec = vec |> map (fun x -> x ** 2.) |> sum Or even let square x = x ** 2. let vec_len vec = vec |> map square |> sum Honestly, if code like this is the biggest nitpick, I have a hard time taking the argument seriously.