4 ms·

It's my understanding that OCaml does not allow its programs to specify the size and signedness of its ints, so no 16-bit unsigned, 32-bit signed, etc... Being

It's my understanding that OCaml does not allow its programs to specify the size and signedness of its ints, so no 16-bit unsigned, 32-bit signed, etc... Being a huge fan of F# v2 who has ditched all MS products, I didn't think OCaml was able to be systems-level because its integer vars can't be precisely specified. I'd love to know if I'm wrong about this. Anyone?

cmrx64 2y ago
You’re wrong, not sure where you got that conception but the int32/64 distinction is in the core language, with numerous libraries (eg stdint, integers) providing the full spectrum.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Thanks. They're not in the basic-data-types, but you are correct, they are available in the stdint module, which has a pub date from Oct 19, 2022. It can be found here: > https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/stdint/ https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/stdint/ It's been a while since I investigated OCaml, so I guess this is a recent addition and is obviously not a part of the standard integer data types (and, therefore, the standard language), that not only have no signedness, and only have Int32 and Int64, but have "one bit is reserved for OCaml's runtime operation". The stdint package also depends on Jane Street's "Dune", which they call a "Fast, portable, and opinionated build system". I don't need or want or need any of its capabilities. As well, the issues page for stdint has a ton of more than year old open issues, so, as I understood, OCaml does not, like F#, have all sizes and signedness of ints available in their fundamental language. Such a language is simply not a good fit for system-level programming, where bit-banging is essential. Such low-level int handling is simply not a part of the language, however much it may be able to be bolted on. I just want to install a programming language, with its base compiler and libraries and preferably with man pages, open some files in vi, compile, correct, and run. That is my requirement for a "systems-level" language. I would never in my life consider OCaml with opam and Dune for building systems-level software. I wish it could, but it's not copacetic for the task, whose sole purpose is to produce clean, simple, understandable binaries. Thanks for helping me understand the situation.
  - thedufer 2y ago
    > which has a pub date from Oct 19, 2022 I think you're misinterpreting this. That's just the date the most recent version of the library was published. The library is something like 15 years old. > the standard integer data types (and, therefore, the standard language), that not only have no signedness I'm not sure what you mean by this - they're signed integers. Maybe you just mean that there aren't unsigned ints in the stdlib? > and only have Int32 and Int64, but have "one bit is reserved for OCaml's runtime operation". The "one bit is reserved" is only true for the `int` type (which varies in size depending on the runtime between 31 and 63 bits). Int32 and Int64 really are normal 32- and 64-bit ints. The trade-off is that they're boxed (although IIRC there is work being done to unbox them) so you pay some extra indirection to use them. > The stdint package also depends on Jane Street's "Dune", which they call a "Fast, portable, and opinionated build system". I don't need or want or need any of its capabilities. Most packages are moving this way. Building OCaml without a proper build system is a massive pain and completely inscrutable to most people; Dune is a clear step forward. You're free to write custom makefiles all the time for your own code, but most people avoid that.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      > The library is something like 15 years old. It's not clear from the docs, but, yeah, I suspected that might be the case. Thanks. > I'm not sure what you mean by this - they're signed integers. Maybe you just mean that there aren't unsigned ints in the stdlib? Yes, that's what I mean. And doesn't that mean that it's fully unsuitable for systems programming, as this entire topic is focused on? > The "one bit is reserved" is only true for the `int` type (which varies in size depending on the runtime between 31 and 63 bits). I don't get it. What is it reserved for then, if the int size is determined when the runtime is built? How can that possibly affect the runtime use of ints? Or is any build of an OCaml program able to target (at compile-time) either 32- or 64-bit targets, or does it mean that an OCaml program build result is always a single format that will adapt at runtime to being in either environment? Once again, I don't see how any of this is suitable for systems programming. Knowing one's runtime details is intrinsic at design-time for dealing with systems-level semantics, by my understanding. > Building OCaml without a proper build system But I don't want to build the programming language, I want to use it. Sure, I can recompile gcc if I need to, but that shouldn't be a part of my dev process for building software that uses gcc, IMO. It looks to me like JaneStreet has taken over OCaml and added a ton of apparatus to facilitate their various uses of it. Of course, I admit that I am very specific and focused on small, tightly-defined software, so multi-target, 3rd-party utilizing software systems are not of interest to me. It looks to me like OCaml's intrinsic install is designed to facilitate far more advanced features than I care to use, and that looks like those features make it a very ill-suited choice for a systems programming language, where concise, straightforward semantics will win the day for long-term success. Once again, it looks like we're all basically forced to fall back to C for systems code, even if our bright-eyed bushy tails can dream of nicer ways of getting the job done. Thanks for your patient and excellent help on this topic.
worik 2y ago
> F# v2 What does that mean?
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  The second version of F#, where they implemented generics, before they got into the type provider stuff.
Bilirubino 2y ago
The modules Int64 and Int32 and part of the OCaml standard library. You mentioned that it is needed dune or Janestreet in your comments to have this functionality. They are part of the standard library. Really, they are part of Ocaml core developments. Actually, for example, you even can use the library big-arrays with these types and int8, int16, signed, unsigned... even more you have platform-native signed integers (32 bits on 32-bit architectures, 64 bits on 64-bit architectures) with Bigarray.nativeint_elt as part of the standard library so all these types are there. You also mention that Int32 and Int64 are recent, however these libraries were part of OCaml already in the 4.X versions of the compiler and standard library (now we are in the 5.3). Note that in OCaml you can use C libraries and it is quite common to manage Int32, Int64, signed etc...

cmrx64 2y ago

You’re wrong, not sure where you got that conception but the int32/64 distinction is in the core language, with numerous libraries (eg stdint, integers) providing the full spectrum.

MrMcCall 2y ago
Thanks. They're not in the basic-data-types, but you are correct, they are available in the stdint module, which has a pub date from Oct 19, 2022. It can be found here: > https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/stdint/ https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/stdint/ It's been a while since I investigated OCaml, so I guess this is a recent addition and is obviously not a part of the standard integer data types (and, therefore, the standard language), that not only have no signedness, and only have Int32 and Int64, but have "one bit is reserved for OCaml's runtime operation". The stdint package also depends on Jane Street's "Dune", which they call a "Fast, portable, and opinionated build system". I don't need or want or need any of its capabilities. As well, the issues page for stdint has a ton of more than year old open issues, so, as I understood, OCaml does not, like F#, have all sizes and signedness of ints available in their fundamental language. Such a language is simply not a good fit for system-level programming, where bit-banging is essential. Such low-level int handling is simply not a part of the language, however much it may be able to be bolted on. I just want to install a programming language, with its base compiler and libraries and preferably with man pages, open some files in vi, compile, correct, and run. That is my requirement for a "systems-level" language. I would never in my life consider OCaml with opam and Dune for building systems-level software. I wish it could, but it's not copacetic for the task, whose sole purpose is to produce clean, simple, understandable binaries. Thanks for helping me understand the situation.
- thedufer 2y ago
  > which has a pub date from Oct 19, 2022 I think you're misinterpreting this. That's just the date the most recent version of the library was published. The library is something like 15 years old. > the standard integer data types (and, therefore, the standard language), that not only have no signedness I'm not sure what you mean by this - they're signed integers. Maybe you just mean that there aren't unsigned ints in the stdlib? > and only have Int32 and Int64, but have "one bit is reserved for OCaml's runtime operation". The "one bit is reserved" is only true for the `int` type (which varies in size depending on the runtime between 31 and 63 bits). Int32 and Int64 really are normal 32- and 64-bit ints. The trade-off is that they're boxed (although IIRC there is work being done to unbox them) so you pay some extra indirection to use them. > The stdint package also depends on Jane Street's "Dune", which they call a "Fast, portable, and opinionated build system". I don't need or want or need any of its capabilities. Most packages are moving this way. Building OCaml without a proper build system is a massive pain and completely inscrutable to most people; Dune is a clear step forward. You're free to write custom makefiles all the time for your own code, but most people avoid that.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    > The library is something like 15 years old. It's not clear from the docs, but, yeah, I suspected that might be the case. Thanks. > I'm not sure what you mean by this - they're signed integers. Maybe you just mean that there aren't unsigned ints in the stdlib? Yes, that's what I mean. And doesn't that mean that it's fully unsuitable for systems programming, as this entire topic is focused on? > The "one bit is reserved" is only true for the `int` type (which varies in size depending on the runtime between 31 and 63 bits). I don't get it. What is it reserved for then, if the int size is determined when the runtime is built? How can that possibly affect the runtime use of ints? Or is any build of an OCaml program able to target (at compile-time) either 32- or 64-bit targets, or does it mean that an OCaml program build result is always a single format that will adapt at runtime to being in either environment? Once again, I don't see how any of this is suitable for systems programming. Knowing one's runtime details is intrinsic at design-time for dealing with systems-level semantics, by my understanding. > Building OCaml without a proper build system But I don't want to build the programming language, I want to use it. Sure, I can recompile gcc if I need to, but that shouldn't be a part of my dev process for building software that uses gcc, IMO. It looks to me like JaneStreet has taken over OCaml and added a ton of apparatus to facilitate their various uses of it. Of course, I admit that I am very specific and focused on small, tightly-defined software, so multi-target, 3rd-party utilizing software systems are not of interest to me. It looks to me like OCaml's intrinsic install is designed to facilitate far more advanced features than I care to use, and that looks like those features make it a very ill-suited choice for a systems programming language, where concise, straightforward semantics will win the day for long-term success. Once again, it looks like we're all basically forced to fall back to C for systems code, even if our bright-eyed bushy tails can dream of nicer ways of getting the job done. Thanks for your patient and excellent help on this topic.

worik 2y ago

> F# v2 What does that mean?

MrMcCall 2y ago
The second version of F#, where they implemented generics, before they got into the type provider stuff.

Bilirubino 2y ago

The modules Int64 and Int32 and part of the OCaml standard library. You mentioned that it is needed dune or Janestreet in your comments to have this functionality. They are part of the standard library. Really, they are part of Ocaml core developments. Actually, for example, you even can use the library big-arrays with these types and int8, int16, signed, unsigned... even more you have platform-native signed integers (32 bits on 32-bit architectures, 64 bits on 64-bit architectures) with Bigarray.nativeint_elt as part of the standard library so all these types are there. You also mention that Int32 and Int64 are recent, however these libraries were part of OCaml already in the 4.X versions of the compiler and standard library (now we are in the 5.3). Note that in OCaml you can use C libraries and it is quite common to manage Int32, Int64, signed etc...