3 ms·
> I mean, the thing it provides is that it doesn't provide powerful abstraction facilities. There's a fundamental limit to how bad the code can get. Right, and
by wtetzner 3y ago
> I mean, the thing it provides is that it doesn't provide powerful abstraction facilities. There's a fundamental limit to how bad the code can get.
Right, and I'm suggesting that Go isn't an improvement over OCaml in that regard. The abstraction facilities on OCaml are very explicit/non-magical. It basically comes down to parametric polymorphism (which I think Go finally has now? Or will soon?) and the module system/functors.
- Kamq 3y ago> The abstraction facilities on OCaml are very explicit/non-magical. I'm talking about PPXs when I talk about magic in ocaml.