4 ms·

Could you explain what you mean by this? I'd say using monads is way more "in-your-face" in OCaml since you have to explicitly say which monad you're using (via

by ihm 12y ago

Could you explain what you mean by this? I'd say using monads is way more "in-your-face" in OCaml since you have to explicitly say which monad you're using (via opening a module or what have you) and there's no do-notation. Perhaps you mean that one doesn't need monads as much in OCaml since it's impure and so they aren't required to manage state?

technomancy 12y ago
To be this is a community factor rather than a technical one. You can't talk to a Haskell person for five minutes before they're trying to explain monads to you, (often whether you already understand them or not) and to an OCaml programmer they're just another tool.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  You're probably talking to the wrong Haskell people :-P
- tel 12y ago
  I'm fairly sure it's a complete technical one. Haskell's purity enforces effect typing, OCaml doesn't. You can just get more done without monads in OCaml and you have to have built-in syntax for sequencing (e.g. ;).