3 ms·

At least theoretically they could be however OCaml is in large part driven by Jane Street and has been for some time now and Jane Street's entire business model

At least theoretically they could be however OCaml is in large part driven by Jane Street and has been for some time now and Jane Street's entire business model is built around optimizing for ultra high throughput, ultra low latency software where mistakes could cost on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. So my guess would be less that Haskell is not these things (nor couldn't it be) but rather that OCaml has had the external forces necessary to optimise for these things above all else.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Is OCaml lazy? I'm not an expert, but if you want ultra high throughput, you might not want lazy. If I understand correctly, in Haskell some nonobvious things can slow you down because of the laziness.
- sestep 1y ago
  No, OCaml is not lazy.
- KiranRao0 1y ago
  OCaml is not lazy. src: https://signalsandthreads.com/future-of-programming/ https://signalsandthreads.com/future-of-programming/
- teiferer 1y ago
  How does laziness cause a slowdown? It merely reorders work done, it doesn't necessarily create more work.
  - dev_hugepages 1y ago
    To do lazyness, you need to accumulate "intermediate computation objects" called thunks. These take space and time to store. See: https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Thunk https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Thunk https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Performance/Strictness https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Performance/Strictn...