1. 20
  1.  

  2. 6

    I went through a (long) period of OCaml development. It’s surprisingly common in the enterprise, or at least was when I was using it. It’s a truly beautiful language.

    That being said, I’ve always fallen on the Caml side of the ML-vs-OCaml debate. I’ve always been loathe to mix paradigms and the “O” part of OCaml is, while absolutely done in the right way, a lot to add on top of Caml (or ML).

    (Again, it’s easy to criticize. I’ve never written a beautiful language used by millions. It’s solely a personal qualm of mine.)

    1. 2

      Are there advantages to Caml over Standard ML?

      1. 3

        Countless advantages. It’s purely a minimalism thing on my part.

      2. 1

        Hi,

        could you sketch out the type of projects you were building in Ocaml? If starting over, would you consider Haskell as a suitable replacement?

        1. 1

          Does the “O” part leak into everything else or can you easily work more or less only with the Caml side of OCaml?

          1. 5

            In my experience (YMMV), you can pretty much ignore the O part…but (a) that was years ago and (b) I’m really bad at ignoring things even when I’m not using them.

            1. 2

              It is still the same. In fact you almost never need to use The O part, and also when you think you do, in most cases, it is more idiomatic to use modules and module functors (parametrised modules)

              1. 2

                Though there are cases where the O part might be useful. Personally I don’t use it, but just as @lorddimwit noted it is quite an interesting take on “objects” that might even benefit predominantly functional programmers.

              2. 1

                Thank you.