111–118 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you post a simple code example? It is hard to imagine what the difficulty is.
You can read through this SO question and the top response does a good job explaining the possible solutions: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32300132/why-cant-i-stor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, thank you, I don't see any OCalm depart there, just depart from ReasonML is mentioned.
I think the "depart" is not supporting newer OCaml feature. While Rescript/ReasonML at first was just an alternative syntax, it has now become a standalone programming language.
Things that don't make sense in javascript runtime context should not be supported.
Backward compatiblity on OCaml side is also something they don't need to care about as its ephemeral - it must typecheck and spit out valid javascript code, that's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well anything can be chalked up to lack of experience -- I'm sure if I was programming OCaml every day it wouldn't be an issue. Nor would I try to categorically claim the syntax is flawed! But so much of the syntax, particularly around function calls, is simply a long row of whitespace-separated tokens, and I feel like my brain has to do extra work to parse what's what, and figure out associativity, and constantly re…
To quote the tutorial you linked: > The syntax for labels and optional arguments is confusing, and you may often wonder when to use ~foo, when to use ?foo and when to use plain foo. It's something of a black art which takes practice to get right. So I don't think it's just you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree - there are some aspects to OCaml that feel a bit outdated but the language has been trying to refresh itself over the last few years. With multicore (and a minimal version of effects) in OCaml 5.0, certain aspects of the OCaml will become state of the art again. This is just the start though -- lots of interesting features (around effects especially) should land in the future. You mention that you write a lot…
> - The language veers towards a C++ style "I will have every PL feature." Sometimes less is more Do you still feel that way with Scala 3? From what I understood, the work on the DOT calculus helped reduce and simplify the core of the language.
Unfortunately I don't know much more about this other than "this is a Good Thing" and has helped/will help with dealing with edge cases in the language and the compiler, better type inference etc.
But Scala 3 still is overwhelmingly compatible with Scala 2.x (which is a required because of the tons of legacy code out there). Given that Scala 3 continues to be essentially the same language as Scala 2, the overall complexity of the language has not gone down very much even though the core of the language is now more consistent.
Put another way, the emergent complexity of the (tad more uniform) building blocks of Scala 3 still needs to be tackled by programmers.
I also want to point out that Scala 3 compilation speed is supposed to be faster but generally speaking the compiler is still slow-ish.
All in all, Scala 3 is more compelling than before. I may still adopt it in the future for a project. But I'm not as starry eyed about it than some others may be...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I meant is that Rescript is not really tied to OCaml as strongly as it was before. The connection before was: ReasonML frontend + Bucklescript compiler backend. Now you just have Rescript which is a rebranding of Bucklescript with a more focussed front-end language (which is a subset of ReasonML). ReasonML aims to supports all of the OCaml syntax while Rescript's aim is to preserve only that syntax that is benef…
I don't think ReScript is a subset of ReasonML. It's forked language that already has some substantial differences and will keep diverging. ReScript is very active. ReasonML is dead for quite a while now. I'm pretty sure ReScript will drop ReasonML syntax soon?
This is really about opinion and individual assessment. It depends on how much emphasis one assigns to surface syntax vs deep language features.
Yes, the surface syntax of Rescript has been cleaned up a bit. There are some new language features but the language is still "close" to OCaml/ReasonML as of end 2021 according to me. If you're able to understand OCaml/ReasonML today you won't have much problem reading Rescript.
But, yes, it is diverging and it could look very different in the coming years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the Python FFI tools are listed here: https://ocamlverse.github.io/content/ffi.html . But clicking through to GitHub, the repos haven't been updated in a while.
https://github.com/thierry-martinez/pyml -- 2 days ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All good improvements, but Java is missing some really key pieces: - pipe operator (or custom operators in general) - do-notation - tail call optimisation - currying / partial application - (better) type inference - expression orientated - less syntactic noise around function calls (fewer commas and parenthesis) - type-classes or even runtime generic information to work around that Some of the thing I’ve listed can n…
I think you're moving the goalposts from "good to great FP support" to "is Haskell". I think that's the only one that fullfills both do-notation and tail call optimisation at the same time. Well, there's also Purescript and Scala.js running on JavaScriptCore since it has tail call optimisation, but that's a bit of a stretch. I see a lot of people like you that seem to have a very precise idea of what FP is supposed t…
I really hope to see more interest in OCaml in the future. It is probably one of the most underrated programming languages. The perfect marriage between state of the art functional programming and pragmatism. A great static and strong type system. Solid performance and an insanely fast compiler. Also compiles to JS if you need that. Multicore support will make it quite perfect. Only thing that is holding it back more…
Is there a curated list of libs to review ?