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

We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

stategraph.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#111

Post by vips7L »

Quekid5 wrote: post #105
vips7L wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scala just seems to have an ever changing identity. Scala 3 drastically changed syntax and now they're trying to move the language from monads to effects.

Scala 3 didn't "drastically" change syntax -- most of the changes also have automatic rewrites with appropriate compiler switches. The effects story is still pretty experimental, but there's also improvements to 'effects' syntax (for-comprehensions) in "preview" for 3.7. As long as the 'effects' work will let me distinguish pure/non-pure, I'd be happy to use just that bit and stick with ZIO/TypeLevel's ecosystem... w…

Significant white space is a drastic syntax change.

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#112

Post by vips7L »

v3xro wrote: post #109
vips7L wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scala just seems to have an ever changing identity. Scala 3 drastically changed syntax and now they're trying to move the language from monads to effects.

Perhaps the focus of the team behind the compiler has changed over the years - but there is still backwards compatibility (via TaSTy), the new syntax changes are not mandatory (for the moment) and when they do become so there will be a fully automatic (and correct) rewrite. There are new libraries exploring "direct style" but you can still use cats-effect or ZIO if you prefer. If anything, Scala has a "too much choic…

> but there is still backwards compatibility (via TaSTy),

I don’t know man. I’ve been burned so many times by breaking changes. We don’t even write new Scala anymore. Everything new is Java nowadays.

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#113

Post by vips7L »

abathologist wrote: post #98
vips7L wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scala just seems to have an ever changing identity. Scala 3 drastically changed syntax and now they're trying to move the language from monads to effects.

One of OCaml's outstanding, but too little mentioned, virtues is the community's commitment to extremely strong backwards compatibility guarantees.

That’s why I just write Java now. It has pattern matching and sum types and they’ll never just break something for fun.

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#114

Post by BenGosub »

yahoozoo wrote: post #108
BenGosub wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that in some cases where OCaml was chosen, like Docker or some parsers, the choice was obviously not evangelical. But I agree that in most cases it is a post-facto justification.

Docker?

Docker virtualization is written in OCaml

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#116

Post by port11 »

yanis_t wrote: post #48
sgarland wrote: post #38

TIL (via a rabbit hole after reading this) that a good type system removes an absurd amount of boilerplate validation code.

This is pretty much obvious for people migrated from JavaScript to TypeScript and suddenly realised that most of their unit tests can now go to a trash bin.

It's been 8 years and I can't imagine ever writing untyped JavaScript again. Garbage garbage garbage.

If you're on TS and want end-to-end type safety, I recommend you validate everything with something like Superschema and Zapatos/PgTyped. Node with 100% type safety is wonderful to work with.

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#118

Post by vilunov »

pshirshov wrote: post #117

All the points in the post are equally applicable to Scala too, so yes, why OCaml?

Scala 2 is a dying language, and Scala 3 is an immature one. The ecosystem and community are also very messy, with fragmentation and witch hunts running rampant. OCaml provides same advantages, but without all the drama.

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#119

Post by pshirshov »

vilunov wrote: post #118
pshirshov wrote: post #117

All the points in the post are equally applicable to Scala too, so yes, why OCaml?

Scala 2 is a dying language, and Scala 3 is an immature one. The ecosystem and community are also very messy, with fragmentation and witch hunts running rampant. OCaml provides same advantages, but without all the drama.

> drama

You don't have to participate.

> immature

Why? The compiler bugs are ironed out by this time. Even the most complex macros are ported.

> same advantages

I like the language but it lacks so many features that I can't be productive with it.

Re: We chose OCaml to write Stategraph

#120

Post by nrlucas »

pjmlp wrote: post #28
gregwebs wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Functional programming is immutable by default. TypeScript and many other typed languages don't really stop you from clobbering things, particularly with concurrency. Rust does. But immutability with GC is a lot easier to use than Rust if you don't need the performance of Rust.

That is only true since people started equating FP with Haskell. OCaml as the discussion subject on this thread, allows for mutable data structures, and I am old enough to have been taught Lisp as one possible avenue for FP.

They have mutability, but it's generally not encouraged. The default is immutability.
Post reply on HN