> The module system though powerful is quite awkward and verbose. Deeply disagree. It’s a lot easier to use and reason about that type classes. You can use Has

> The module system though powerful is quite awkward and verbose. Deeply disagree. It’s a lot easier to use and reason about that type classes. You can use Haskell if that’s what you want anyway. I’m glade Ocaml isn’t Haskell. > Yes, effects are definitely a cutting edge feature in OCaml. But they are untyped which is a big limitation I would say. APersonally I think it’s an insignificant limitation for a feature existing approximately nowhere else. Anyway I think we have safely killed your initial argument that Ocaml was somehow lagging behind.