11–20 of 21 posts
"Examples of functional programming languages include OCaml, Erlang, Clojure, Haskell, Scala, and Common Lisp."
F# and OCaml are close cousins, and for me F# is even cleaner syntax and twice as fast (M4 Mac Studio).
It was a struggle for me to overcome my partisan preference for OCaml.
I feel that Ocaml could really use better VSCode integration more than literally anything else, but the community seems completely oriented around emacs
However, I (as maintainer of OCaml-eglot) find Emacs easier to extend (the VSCode extension is surprisingly complex when you stray from the beaten path), which seemed perfect for incubating an experimental feature. Furthermore, as mentioned at the end of the article, the feature can also be invoked from a code action, which makes it de facto callable from VSCode once the various PRs have been merged :)
I feel that Ocaml could really use better VSCode integration more than literally anything else, but the community seems completely oriented around emacs
We try to invest equal time between the OCaml platform (on VSCode) and OCaml-eglot (for Emacs). In fact, I find the VSCode extension to be rich (and generally iso-features with Emacs mode). However, I (as maintainer of OCaml-eglot) find Emacs easier to extend (the VSCode extension is surprisingly complex when you stray from the beaten path), which seemed perfect for incubating an experimental feature. Furthermore, as…
I feel that Ocaml could really use better VSCode integration more than literally anything else, but the community seems completely oriented around emacs
Here significant work was done to properly bridge the gap between Merlin and the LSP server so it should work fine in VSCode.
Generally speaking, the Ocaml community seems to spend a lot of time getting VSCode to work.
Tarides has an OCaml focus. Elsewhere on their site, with an interesting omission: "Examples of functional programming languages include OCaml, Erlang, Clojure, Haskell, Scala, and Common Lisp." F# and OCaml are close cousins, and for me F# is even cleaner syntax and twice as fast (M4 Mac Studio). It was a struggle for me to overcome my partisan preference for OCaml.
F# have drifted a bit further since but not that much. It’s a nice language but it’s not really comparable to Ocaml at this point. At least, I don’t see many cases where people would have to chose one or the other. I think people know if they want the CLR or not.
Very cool! Does it replace identical expressions in the same scope? Like: let tau = 3.14 +. 3.14 becomes let pi = 3.14 let tau = pi +. pi ? EDIT: Or even crazier with function: let _ = (x + 1) + (y + 1) becomes let plus_one a = a + 1 let _ = (plus_one x) + (plus_one y) (I ask this just out of curiosity. Even the "simpler" version is very impressive!)
Tarides has an OCaml focus. Elsewhere on their site, with an interesting omission: "Examples of functional programming languages include OCaml, Erlang, Clojure, Haskell, Scala, and Common Lisp." F# and OCaml are close cousins, and for me F# is even cleaner syntax and twice as fast (M4 Mac Studio). It was a struggle for me to overcome my partisan preference for OCaml.
F# started as an Ocaml port to the CLR. In the end, they decided to port a subset of the language so you get mostly the same syntax, no parametrised modules which is a big part of Ocaml but in exchange you can call libraries from other languages using the CLR. Of course, that comes with the issue of being a second class citizen in the .Net family, albeit a very nice second class citizen. F# have drifted a bit further…
I'm escaping the black hole of Haskell. If one can code in Chez Scheme, one can code without parametrized modules, as much as I admire them. And there are also F# additions OCaml could admire.
I held back for all of your reasons, and finally caved. I never saw myself in the .NET ecosystem, but prejudices are a funny thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
F# started as an Ocaml port to the CLR. In the end, they decided to port a subset of the language so you get mostly the same syntax, no parametrised modules which is a big part of Ocaml but in exchange you can call libraries from other languages using the CLR. Of course, that comes with the issue of being a second class citizen in the .Net family, albeit a very nice second class citizen. F# have drifted a bit further…
I make little use of .NET; my hand-coded atomic queue is faster than .NET work stealing for parallelism, for example. I like the slightly cleaner syntax and twice as fast for my applications. I'm escaping the black hole of Haskell. If one can code in Chez Scheme, one can code without parametrized modules, as much as I admire them. And there are also F# additions OCaml could admire. I held back for all of your reasons…
I don’t think people have prejudices here. Ocaml is Ocaml and F# is F#.
If your point is that people using OCaml should instead use F#, I vehemently disagree. That would be losing most of what makes Ocaml actually Ocaml.
Still F# is a nice language. F# without using .Net library I don’t see the point however. It’s the most interesting part of the language.
Very cool! Does it replace identical expressions in the same scope? Like: let tau = 3.14 +. 3.14 becomes let pi = 3.14 let tau = pi +. pi ? EDIT: Or even crazier with function: let _ = (x + 1) + (y + 1) becomes let plus_one a = a + 1 let _ = (plus_one x) + (plus_one y) (I ask this just out of curiosity. Even the "simpler" version is very impressive!)