5 ms·
Unfortunately OCaml leaves a lot to be desired after working with Haskell for a significant amount of time. As far as I know GHC's extensions makes the type sys
by jroesch 13y ago
Unfortunately OCaml leaves a lot to be desired after working with Haskell for a significant amount of time. As far as I know GHC's extensions makes the type system much more powerful in non trivial ways. For example things like type families, data kinds, kind polymorphism, type level naturals, RankNTypes, and so on. That being said OCaml is still orders of magnitude better than most other options. As well, a least for me, it is a lot more work introduce explicit laziness all over the place into eager language, than it is to go the other way and apply selective strictness.
- eternalban 13y agoIs it fair to say OCaml is a more practical choice (as of now)?
- dllthomas 13y agoThat depends on the domain.
- eternalban 13y agoWould appreciate it if you would expand on that. (My comment was general in nature.)
- dllthomas 13y agoWell, most important is probably availability and stability of domain relevant libraries in either language. There are areas Haskell has well covered and areas where it's thinner... It's also been the case historically that Haskell had much better concurrency support - I'm not sure whether that's still true - in which case a more parallel workload might push Haskell-wards (if it's not so parallel that simply spinning up N entirely separate processes make sense, in which case concurrency support doesn't matter). I'm not familiar enough with the current state of OCaml, or with Haskell libraries outside the domains I've been playing in, to really give a thorough run-down of specific domains, sadly. I'd be interested to see it if someone else took a swing.