Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

flint.cs.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#31

Post by jackfoxy »

throwaway7645 wrote: post #22
poizan42 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At computer science at the University of Copenhagen F# has been used for the introduction courses the past couple of years, which as far as I know has been a big success, so I'm doubtful of it not being beginner friendly

Mileage is probably not representative when you're in a university setting being taught by professors in an intro course versus a professional trying to use a multitude of the data science libraries and having trouble tying it together. Python has a zillion books published and a large percentage of them are beginner oriented. F# has only a few books and they are almost all for experts.

The community surrounding F# today is very supportive and helpful with people of all experience levels. Compared to when I learned F# in 2010 it is orders of magnitude easier and more social. So many resources: the F# Foundation website http://fsharp.org/ is a good place to start. http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ and the book form of the site's articles on github https://swlaschin.gitbooks.io/fsharpforfunandprofit/content/... has great information for people at all levels. And finally just get on twitter #fsharp to start meeting people in the community.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#32

Post by throwaway7645 »

nv-vn wrote: post #6

The problem with this article is that it's missing an answer to why one would choose ML/OCaml over Haskell. Haskell has many more features, a more advanced type system, arguably superior syntax, and much better library support. However, I believe that OCaml/SML are often a better choice for a number of reasons. First of all, OCaml/SML are the best choice in terms of example code for compilers. They're historically th…

Haskell may indeed be one of the most advanced languages out there in terms of raw power, but it is very complex (how many monad tutorials does it seriously take to teach one of the most core pieces of the language) and how much category theory do you need to know to be moderately effective? Also, the ecosystem could use some work. An example is the main string library isn't used in favor of a different one. Using the first and obvious one leads to performance worse than python and perl even after you compile. I'm being nitpicky, but anytime someone writes a blog post comparing a programming language to playing darksouls (game where you die thousands of times) I'd say you have an issue.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#33

Post by jackmott »

OCaml has the potential to be great for almost everything with some work and a bigger ecosystems. F# as well (very similar). i can only imagine how great the world would be if a standard ml had accidentally become the web browser language and all that mind share had gone into evolving it and optimizing it and its tools.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#34

Post by throwaway7645 »

jackfoxy wrote: post #31
throwaway7645 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mileage is probably not representative when you're in a university setting being taught by professors in an intro course versus a professional trying to use a multitude of the data science libraries and having trouble tying it together. Python has a zillion books published and a large percentage of them are beginner oriented. F# has only a few books and they are almost all for experts.

The community surrounding F# today is very supportive and helpful with people of all experience levels. Compared to when I learned F# in 2010 it is orders of magnitude easier and more social. So many resources: the F# Foundation website http://fsharp.org/ is a good place to start. http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ and the book form of the site's articles on github https://swlaschin.gitbooks.io/fsharpforfunandprofit/c…

I've gone through all of those and although it's nice, it is not what I'd call beginner friendly at all. Python has books teaching you to program in Python which is a really good way to learn a programming language. Scott's tutorial using Frankenstein to explain Monads is interesting, but I need to see how to build simple programs and modules first. How does one organize a program using pure FP, or what's the best way to mix in OOP and it is really confusing to learn all the pragmas and compiler directives. I'm not sure if I'm using the right terminology, but a lot of example code uses FSI which has to call the modules differently than if you make an executable. I really would love nothing more than F# to be my go to language, but I need a little more help getting there. I realize not all users have this problem though.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#35

Post by naasking »

rbehrends wrote: post #28

I'll note that some of the aspects don't necessarily work out like that in practice: 1. The GC part is true, but one has to remember that this was written at a time when GC was still a bit of an unusual feature in mainstream languages. 2. Tail recursion doesn't really make much of a difference for walking trees, which is recursive, but (mostly) not tail recursive. 3. OCaml in particular uses 63/31-bit ints due to imp…

> 3. OCaml in particular uses 63/31-bit ints due to implementation details, which isn't a good fit for 64/32-bit integers

I'm not sure what "isn't a good fit" is supposed to mean.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#36

Post by Drup »

nv-vn wrote: post #14
Dangeranger wrote: post #3

After learning Elm I wanted to understand ML/OCaml a bit more, so I worked through some documentation from the OCaml site and walked away pleasantly surprised. After using it for a couple of weeks I am confused why ML/OCaml aren't more popular. They are safe, functional, stable, fast, and have great tooling. They seem poised to take over the functional domain. While the syntax took a little getting used to ( emphasis…

I think MLs are kind of in limbo in regards to functional vs. imperative and OO vs. procedural programming. While they offer good OO, it's utilized very little. The functional features are used a ton, but don't dare approach the complexity of Scala, Haskell, etc., which is disappointing to a lot of more advanced functional programmers. They have reasonably good facilities for imperative programming, but these are mos…

I would actually argue the opposite: ML languages propose the sweet spot of having functional features but still being flexible.

Mutability, OO and various other feature are all there just when you need them. You don't need, like in Haskell, to do incredible contortions to be able to express things naturally.

Regardless which algorithm and API you want, there is a pretty good chance you can express it in OCaml naturally, and it'll almost always be reasonably efficient by default.

Also, everyone underestimate modules a lot. They're the best software development tool in any language by a long shot.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#37

Post by rbehrends »

naasking wrote: post #35
rbehrends wrote: post #28

I'll note that some of the aspects don't necessarily work out like that in practice: 1. The GC part is true, but one has to remember that this was written at a time when GC was still a bit of an unusual feature in mainstream languages. 2. Tail recursion doesn't really make much of a difference for walking trees, which is recursive, but (mostly) not tail recursive. 3. OCaml in particular uses 63/31-bit ints due to imp…

> 3. OCaml in particular uses 63/31-bit ints due to implementation details, which isn't a good fit for 64/32-bit integers I'm not sure what "isn't a good fit" is supposed to mean.

Try storing an integer literal that requires 64 bits in a variable that can hold only 63 bits.

It's not going to make it impossible (you may just need something like a ShortIntLiteral and a LongIntLiteral variant), but it's going to require additional effort.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#38

Post by jackmott »

throwaway7645 wrote: post #34
jackfoxy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The community surrounding F# today is very supportive and helpful with people of all experience levels. Compared to when I learned F# in 2010 it is orders of magnitude easier and more social. So many resources: the F# Foundation website http://fsharp.org/ is a good place to start. http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ and the book form of the site's articles on github https://swlaschin.gitbooks.io/fsharpforfunandprofit/c…

I've gone through all of those and although it's nice, it is not what I'd call beginner friendly at all. Python has books teaching you to program in Python which is a really good way to learn a programming language. Scott's tutorial using Frankenstein to explain Monads is interesting, but I need to see how to build simple programs and modules first. How does one organize a program using pure FP, or what's the best wa…

i am an expert and Scott's website is usually bananas to me. For some people his approach doesn't seem to click.

A good beginner book for F# is a good idea.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#39

Post by dogfishbar »

poizan42 wrote: post #16
throwaway7645 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crappy windows support for OCaml. F# is similar to OCaml, but is very difficult for beginners and those not familiar with .NET. I also don't see a lot of beginner material for OCaml.

At computer science at the University of Copenhagen F# has been used for the introduction courses the past couple of years, which as far as I know has been a big success, so I'm doubtful of it not being beginner friendly

I have been teaching OCaml in CS1 at Boston College for 4 years now. Of hundreds of students who went on to learn Java in our CS2 course (joining Python-trained students from other sections of CS1), nearly unanimous happy campers. When OCaml is their first programming language, they're good to go.

Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

#40

Post by atombender »

hongbo_zhang wrote: post #30

For web developers who are looking for an industrial strength functional language instead of JS, OCaml probably has the best story here. Actually it has two OCaml->JS compilers of very high quality The first one, js_of_ocaml, could bootstrap the whole compiler several years ago(probably the first one there). The recent one, https://github.com/bloomberg/bucklescript , push the JS compilation into next level, it genera…

I'm optimistic about Reason, Facebook's new syntax "skin" on top of OCaml. I find OCaml's syntax to be quite gnarly; of the MLs, F# is probably the cleanest and most modern-feeling. Something like F# without the .NET stuff could have been amazing.
Post reply on HN