OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
ocaml.janestreet.com
OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#2The number one problem with commercial OCaml is the lack of comprehensive library support. Until that's addressed, it's not going to take off. Brilliant language, not very practical. F# is a step in the right direction here.
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#3It would be interesting to know what they plan to do. It's easy to speculate l. It would be much more interesting to see ocaml on the jvm
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#4It would be interesting to know what they plan to do. It's easy to speculate l. It would be much more interesting to see ocaml on the jvm
[deleted]
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#5The number one problem with commercial OCaml is the lack of comprehensive library support. Until that's addressed, it's not going to take off. Brilliant language, not very practical. F# is a step in the right direction here.
While F# is a great language, its main problem is that it is basically MS only. At the current stage of development mono lags behind official MS .net implementation too much in terms of performance/stability/features.
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#6It would be interesting to know what they plan to do. It's easy to speculate l. It would be much more interesting to see ocaml on the jvm
OcamlJava is a work-in-progress implementation of OCaml on the JVM, from Xavier Clerc of INRIA. http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/
There's also Yeti ( http://mth.github.com/yeti/ ), an ML for the JVM, though I'm not sure how mature it is yet.
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#7The number one problem with commercial OCaml is the lack of comprehensive library support. Until that's addressed, it's not going to take off. Brilliant language, not very practical. F# is a step in the right direction here.
What about Jane Street's Core (http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/13), or Batteries Included (http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/) ?
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#8It would be interesting to know what they plan to do. It's easy to speculate l. It would be much more interesting to see ocaml on the jvm
The JVM is quite a bad choice for languages like ocaml as it doesn't support full tail call elimination, which is a fundamental aspect for the predominant style of writing ocaml. So you would either have to simulate the ocaml stack on the java heap (slow and will probably make ocaml/java interop ugly, defeating the whole purpose of porting to the JVVM) or rewrite most of the existing ocaml code in a ocaml-for-the-jvm style that is quite different from normal ocaml style, taking into account which tail calls can be optimized and which cannot. And if you decide to go down that road, you will not gain much you cannot get by using scala right now, the only missing thing is camlp4.
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#9I wonder if there's any hope of ever getting type classes in OCaml. Then you'd be able to have stuff like a single "print" function you can give any type of value that can be turned into a string representation.
Re: OCamlPro and the future of OCaml
#10It would be interesting to know what they plan to do. It's easy to speculate l. It would be much more interesting to see ocaml on the jvm
OcamlJava is a work-in-progress implementation of OCaml on the JVM, from Xavier Clerc of INRIA. http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/ There's also Yeti ( http://mth.github.com/yeti/ ), an ML for the JVM, though I'm not sure how mature it is yet.
I'm really loving Yeti. It's not very mature but it's a very promising language.
It does need more libraries but it's also extremely interoperable with Java/JVM. Very simple and easy to call out to Java libraries. Also compiles to native JVM classes (can be called easily from Java).
For anyone interested, I managed to write a Mustache implementation last weekend: