4 ms·

OCaml is more practical than ML and Haskell because it has objects, for loops, more edge cases in the language, built in mutable keyword, and extensible records

• imanaccount247 12y ago
  No it is not. Ocaml's objects make it less practical, not more. That is why they are virtually completely unused. At best, for loops are irrelevant. I'd say they are closer to a negative than irrelevant though. What do you mean "more edge cases?" That the language is less safe? How is that practical? Haskell has mutable references too, with the added benefit of them being type safe. And haskell has extensible records, they are just a library like anything else: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/vinyl http://hackage.haskell.org/package/vinyl
  • methodology 12y ago
    > That the language is less safe? Not necessarily. > And haskell has extensible records, they are just a library like anything else: And OCaml has monads, they are just a library like else.
    • dllthomas 12y ago
      Monads are arguably a library in Haskell, too... though one the standard guarantees is present, exposed by the Prelude, and relied on by a lot of code.
    • imanaccount247 12y ago
      >Not necessarily. Then what? You made the vague statement, make it not vague. >And OCaml has monads, they are just a library like else. And? I did not claim ocaml lacks monads. You claimed haskell lacks extensible records. You do understand that my post was a direct reply to what you said right? Not just some random things I felt like saying for no particular reason.