Live data from Hacker News

A better build system for OCaml

blog.janestreet.com

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#91
post #12

I wonder if anyone has used Jane Street's open source OCaml libraries and tools for somewhat serious projects. I took a brief look at these things, and my impression is that their stuff isn't "ready" for anyone outside Jane Street, even though they put a lot of effort in building the ecosystem and open source their code.

Not a serious project, but I use their stdlib for my personal static site generator. I think it has much better API compared to the standard stdlib.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#92
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's true up to a point, but it misses the distinction between accidental and essential complexity. Essential complexity has to go somewhere, accidental complexity doesn't, and most complexity in software is accidental. And even when the complexity is essential, IMO it's better off not in the build system. I'll gladly accept more complex code for the sake of a simpler build (even though that theoretically m…

Also the point of software engineering is to take the real complexity that actually exists and you can't get rid of and work out how to write simple code to deal with it. Good software architecture does not include complexity because there is complexity in the business. It manages the complexity with simple code. The trouble is when people say "complex" you don't really know what they mean, though. They often just me…

Nah. Hickey say stuff that sounds profound but doesn't actually help you get better at writing software or even at talking about it.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#93
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques. I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit

Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.

Is the problem with the system or with the minds? The minds that want to scroll are the same as the ones that make money on the scrolling, that made the scrolling itself, and that made the system we're in. Why is it that defeatist comments always focus on the capitalism part and not on anything else? I don't think it's perfect like we aren't perfect but unless you have some particular suggestion this type of comment just reads "boohoo the world is bad and it's not my fault".

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#94
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques. I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit

Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.

Hey, some of them are working tirelessly to ruin sports.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#95
post #90
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.

Some fraction of young minds, not all. I was happy to work at a small aerospace company with extreme concentration of brightest minds. Only because they loved the domain, and didn't mind a salary cut. What a joy and relief it was for me after FAANG!

Possibly you didn't mind the salary because you'd already worked at FAANG?

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some use a fork of rust with borrow checking disabled. go fish

Isn’t borrow checking only compile time?

Yes, but sometimes it forces you to write slightly slower code that can be proven safe.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#97
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grass is always greener my friend. Many jobs in finance are updating 20 year old Java code, or figuring out new ways to load data in and out of Excel files for custom reporting.

OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques. I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit

Not HFT, but we disable those on our cloud VMs

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#98
post #52
post #4

I have to respect Jane Street for proving that HM-typed functional programming can be production-ready and extremely fast when given enough love. I still occasionally hear things about how the more academic-styled functional languages can't work in production, but Ocaml shows that it absolutely can work, even with high performance requirements.

There's also pandoc written in Haskell. Facebook used it for it's spam-protection too, at some point (it might still do that, but I don't know).

Sadly I don't think it's used any more - it was migrated away from. I worked in integrity there and quite enjoyed whenever I had to make some changes to the Haskell rules :)

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#99
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but could you live with the fact that you're providing absolutely no value to the world? It always makes me sad when the greatest minds get gobbled up by these companies because they're creaming off the top of an enormously complex system they created.

People outside the industry just use that as cope because they making way less money. "How do you live with yourself making high 6 fig / 7 figs a yr?" Quite easily in fact.

[dead]

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#100
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind CMake. It's awful, but I'm already using C or C++, so the bar is set pretty low. It does do a few things right, and at least some of the things it does wrong are manageable. I'll eat at least a bit of shit if it means I can get more than one platform's-worth of build process out of a single set of human-editable configuration files.

Have you tried meson? I used it once many years ago, and it seemed slightly better.

Meson is quite nice if you want to build software exactly and exclusively how the Meson designers want to build software.

The world does not work like this though. CMake is weird but once you've learned some non-intuitive stuff, it works very well and there's a reason why pretty much everyone is using it.

Post reply on HN