4 ms·
> I know there's Camomile Camomille is great, but it exhaustively covers the whole UTF standard, which you might not need for more casual uses. There are other
by fzltrp 13y ago
> I know there's Camomile
Camomille is great, but it exhaustively covers the whole UTF standard, which you might not need for more casual uses. There are other libraries bringing lighter support for UTF strings (ocamlnet for instance I believe). Nevertheless, Camomille does a pretty good job if you're concerned by compliance.
> There's also this: http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html which I mostly agree with.
It's a pretty old page. I'm not sure its content is still accurate. I'll have to look into that.
- agumonkey 13y ago> created: 2007-01-31 > updated: 2013-02-11 not that old, even though ocaml metabolic rate increased a lot in the recent years
- silentOpen 13y agoExcept it's no longer accurate (e.g. native backtraces work just fine). Would someone really think that OCaml sucks and maintain an accurate page about that fact for 6 years? That sort of nonsensical dedication should at least prompt you to check its facts.
- fzltrp 13y agoWell, I don't know. The "No polymorphism" section is misleading (though polymorphism doesn't carry the same meaning from one language to the next): There's this comment on higher order functions not being supported which surprises me. See the section 7.13[1] and 7.14 of the OCaml documentation. These features are availabe since ver 3.12 of the distribution. [1]: http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml-4.01/extn.html#sec227 http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml-4.01/extn.html#se...
- nousernamesleft 13y ago>It's a pretty old page. I'm not sure its content is still accurate Half of it never was as it is just "ocaml isn't lisp and I can't handle that".