Code iOS Apps in OCaml

Post by anders0 » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 8:15 PM UTC

li wrote: post #16

ootachi wrote: post #2

OCaml is a highly underappreciated language. The biggest problem is the haphazard syntax, but if you can get over that, it's really a joy to use for application programming. You get the strongly-typed, type-inferred, functional aspects of Haskell, but without the drawbacks of laziness (for example, you can safely do IO outside the IO monad, and space leaks are less common) and with a simpler type system. There are no…

is it possible to just change syntax and keep the rest of ocaml system. For the syntax we can borrow ideas from Ruby or Python.

Post by mwerty » Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 8:24 AM UTC

Post by michaelochurch » Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 9:35 PM UTC

Dn_Ab wrote: post #15

michaelochurch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OCaml's largest problems, IMO, are: 1. Global interpreter-lock, and the effect that has on the ability to write multi-threaded programs. 2. False negative proof, the same issue Haskell has. The fact that it's "had its chance" to catch on and hasn't done so marks it as a failure (or "not production ready") in the eyes of people who make decisions. Scala has better odds than Ocaml and Haskell for this reason alone. 3.…

I do not think Scala is an ML. The use of the word acceptable and indeed restricting it to an ML derivative loses the point of what Scala is supposed to be. Scala is supposed to be something different: a successful melding of OOP and functional. And it is the best at that I have seen. It succeeds on this better than the next biggest contender: F#, which is the most acceptable ML, IMO. F# is more typically functional,…

Post by michaelochurch » Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 9:36 PM UTC

Dn_Ab wrote: post #15

michaelochurch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OCaml's largest problems, IMO, are: 1. Global interpreter-lock, and the effect that has on the ability to write multi-threaded programs. 2. False negative proof, the same issue Haskell has. The fact that it's "had its chance" to catch on and hasn't done so marks it as a failure (or "not production ready") in the eyes of people who make decisions. Scala has better odds than Ocaml and Haskell for this reason alone. 3.…

I do not think Scala is an ML. The use of the word acceptable and indeed restricting it to an ML derivative loses the point of what Scala is supposed to be. Scala is supposed to be something different: a successful melding of OOP and functional. And it is the best at that I have seen. It succeeds on this better than the next biggest contender: F#, which is the most acceptable ML, IMO. F# is more typically functional,…

Post by Arelius » Mon, Mar 26, 2012, 7:09 AM UTC

gecko wrote: post #24

Arelius wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that C++ templates when used for anything but simple type generalization, are a gross, gross part of C++. I'd hardly call that core to the C++ syntax. However, I'd also argue that using templates to that extent is misuse. Eventually, it becomes a better idea to simplify your approach, or invest in a decent macro preprocessor. I for instance feel that many of the template heavy boost libraries, while pow…

While I agree that C++ templates when used for anything but simple type generalization, are a gross, gross part of C++. I'd hardly call that core to the C++ syntax. You're welcome to feel that way, but template abuse is simply a given with 99% of the C++ that crosses my screen these days. It's pervasive in Boost, it's pervasive in the STL (especially in C++11), it's pervasive in libraries like ATL and WTL. You can wr…