3 ms·

Good OCaml code is one of most readable in the category of static languages, I agree. But it's less "writable" than readable in my opinion. Of course you can ge

by a0 12y ago

Good OCaml code is one of most readable in the category of static languages, I agree. But it's less "writable" than readable in my opinion. Of course you can get used to the syntax, but for me expressiveness and clarity of comprehension comes from both: simplicity of writing and reading. Often I feel like there is a barrier between your thoughts and their execution which does not exist in Python or Ruby for example. When I switch from OCaml to Python it's like a breath of fresh air. In conclusion I think common tasks must be syntactically abstractable. For example, I find working with standard data structures in OCaml annoying, as if I were programming in C. There are tons of syntax extensions for OCaml that try to fix these defects, but it only supports my claims.

adultSwim 12y ago
Learning Python was certainly easier for me. I could really hit the ground running. OCaml had a much steeper learning curve. It took me a while to get used to the compiler and the different style of programming. However, I'm a professional. Some of the powerful tools I use take a serious investment to learn. Here it paid off well. Now I find that Python programs are easy to start but OCaml programs are easy to finish. The compiler is an invaluable helper that I miss when using other languages. Some syntax is clunkier than others but to me having good types (and a good compiler) makes or breaks a language. I can get my work done in anything but this is an area where the language really helps me out.