4 ms·

(OCaml Question Ahead) I agree on F#. It changed my C && OO perspective in fantastic ways, but I too can't support anything Microsoft anymore. But, seeing as

(OCaml Question Ahead) I agree on F#. It changed my C && OO perspective in fantastic ways, but I too can't support anything Microsoft anymore. But, seeing as OCaml was the basis for F#, I have a question, though: Does OCaml allow the use of specifically sized integer types? I seem to remember in my various explorations that OCaml just has a kind of "number" type. If I want a floating point variable, I want a specific 32- or 64- or 128-bit version; same with my ints. I did very much like F# having the ability to specify the size and signedness of my int vars. Thanks in advance, OCaml folks.

neonsunset 2y ago
F# is a far better option from a practical standpoint when compared to alternatives. By simple virtue of using .NET and having access to very wide selection of libraries that make it a non-issue when deciding to solve a particular business case. It also has an alternate compiler Fable which can target JS allowing the use of F# in front-end. Other options have worse support and weaker tooling, and often not even more open development process (e.g. you can see and contribute to ongoing F# work on Github). This tired opinion ".net bad because microsoft bad" has zero practical relevance to actually using C# itself and even more so F# and it honestly needs to die out because it borders on mental illness. You can hate microsoft products, I do so too, and still judge a particular piece of techology and the people that work on it on their merits.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  I was asking about whether or not OCaml has the ability to target specific integer size and signedness, as F# does. I would like to construct precise software that targets the specific kinds of ints that compilers have historically facilitated microprocessors to process, but using a functional language instead of C or C++. The F# folks (including Don Syme) did a fantastic job on the early versions of the language (I used it up to ver 2 or early 3), but I am tired of the corporate engine that funds that ecosystem. I now construct my software within an operating system of a different pedigree. Such considerations are important to me, but thanks for sharing your preference. As for me, I hate nothing or no one, but I am as picky as a poor man can be about whom I choose to rely on for my tools. As for your opinion on the borderlands of mental illness, I'll contact you at your outlook email address should I seek your opinion about such differently-technical topics. But I was only asking if the OCaml compiler can target specific varieties of ints, as the .NET compiler does.
throw16180339 2y ago
I'm a novice OCaml user, but AFAIK here's how it works. int is pointer-sized minus one bit, e.g. 31 on 32-bit, 63 on 64-bit nativeint is pointer-sized, but boxed. float is 64-bit and boxed. There's limited support for different number sizes or specifying signedness.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Thanks for your kind reply. In my occasional explorations over the years, that, too, is basically the gist of what I've gathered. F#, being based upon the .NET compiler and runtime, allows specific targeting of both int size and signedness. I'm surprised that OCaml doesn't also allow that, seeing as its compiler has a long pedigree with respect to both programming contests and real-world hardcore software systems (such as trading desk software). I remember first learning of it around two decades ago as a team used it to win the ICFP contest. I guess that such specificity is just outside of the concerns of the OCaml folks.

neonsunset 2y ago

F# is a far better option from a practical standpoint when compared to alternatives. By simple virtue of using .NET and having access to very wide selection of libraries that make it a non-issue when deciding to solve a particular business case. It also has an alternate compiler Fable which can target JS allowing the use of F# in front-end. Other options have worse support and weaker tooling, and often not even more open development process (e.g. you can see and contribute to ongoing F# work on Github). This tired opinion ".net bad because microsoft bad" has zero practical relevance to actually using C# itself and even more so F# and it honestly needs to die out because it borders on mental illness. You can hate microsoft products, I do so too, and still judge a particular piece of techology and the people that work on it on their merits.

MrMcCall 2y ago
I was asking about whether or not OCaml has the ability to target specific integer size and signedness, as F# does. I would like to construct precise software that targets the specific kinds of ints that compilers have historically facilitated microprocessors to process, but using a functional language instead of C or C++. The F# folks (including Don Syme) did a fantastic job on the early versions of the language (I used it up to ver 2 or early 3), but I am tired of the corporate engine that funds that ecosystem. I now construct my software within an operating system of a different pedigree. Such considerations are important to me, but thanks for sharing your preference. As for me, I hate nothing or no one, but I am as picky as a poor man can be about whom I choose to rely on for my tools. As for your opinion on the borderlands of mental illness, I'll contact you at your outlook email address should I seek your opinion about such differently-technical topics. But I was only asking if the OCaml compiler can target specific varieties of ints, as the .NET compiler does.

throw16180339 2y ago

I'm a novice OCaml user, but AFAIK here's how it works. int is pointer-sized minus one bit, e.g. 31 on 32-bit, 63 on 64-bit nativeint is pointer-sized, but boxed. float is 64-bit and boxed. There's limited support for different number sizes or specifying signedness.

MrMcCall 2y ago
Thanks for your kind reply. In my occasional explorations over the years, that, too, is basically the gist of what I've gathered. F#, being based upon the .NET compiler and runtime, allows specific targeting of both int size and signedness. I'm surprised that OCaml doesn't also allow that, seeing as its compiler has a long pedigree with respect to both programming contests and real-world hardcore software systems (such as trading desk software). I remember first learning of it around two decades ago as a team used it to win the ICFP contest. I guess that such specificity is just outside of the concerns of the OCaml folks.