I tried OCaml for a bit but the weirdness got to me after awhile. There was a ton of magic around project setup and compilation that I didn’t understand and couldn’t find properly explained, and the fact there is more than one “standard” library bugged the heck out of me. I’m hoping that once the Linux story solidifies a bit more around .NET I’ll be able to reasonably give F# a shot.
I’ve been using F# on Linux for a few years now using Mono. It’s a bit more manual than .NET Core, but it’s stable.
If you’re interested in trying again, I created a build system (yes, yet another one) specifically designed for getting going fast in most cases. I have a blog post here:
Short version: all you need is a pds.conf which is in TOML so fairly straight forward, a specific directory structure (src/<project>) and GNU Make. Then you run pds && make -f pds.mk and you’re done. Supports tests as well as debug builds.
pds && make -f pds.mk
I’m not sure it is worth pushing yet another build system that seemingly nobody uses (at least I haven’t yet run across a package which uses it) when jbuilder seems to be gaining so much momentum in the OCaml world lately.
Maybe, but pds is pretty easy to port away from for most builds and it’s so trivial to get started and much less confusing than jbuilder’s config, IMO. My personal view is that jbuilder is a mistake but I’ll wait to switch over to it once it’s gained enough momentum. At that point, I can just switch pds over to producing jbuilder configs instead. But I’m a symptom of the problem rather than the solution unfortunately. I also use @c-cube’s containers, so yet another stdlib replacement/extension :)
My personal view is that jbuilder is a mistake
My personal view is that jbuilder is a mistake
Could you elaborate on why? IMO jbuilder is not perfect either but if we get a modern, documented build system which is hopefully easy to setup, it would be a massive win over all the other solutions we currently use.
I agree, the different choices in tooling is sort of disorienting and it can lead to analysis-paralysis. For a toy compiler project I started working on, I tried to find the most basic tooling that would work: whatever ocaml compiler came with my distro, ocamlbuild, make, and then eventually, extlib, ocpindent, and then after some more time, opam, ocamlfind, utop. It may make sense to use the tooling outlined in this article if future maintainability is a big concern, but to get started and to learn ocaml, I don’t find it necessary (and definitely not appealing). Having done this, I don’t pine so much for standardization (;
There’s more than one standard library in a lot of languages, though. Why does that bother you?
It bothers me because it makes the language more difficult to learn. It also wasn’t always clear to me that an alternative was in use because, IIRC, they’re not (always) clearly namespaced. I have run into this in Haskell as well, FWIW.
Typically it’s visible when you use an alternative stdlib because you start your files with open Batteries or open Core or open Containers. I agree it’s annoying that the stdlib is not richer, and it’s a bit slow to accept contributions, but in a way the existence of alternative stdlibs/extensions shows how easy it is to roll your own :-)
You can’t have two standards, that’s a double standard!
Haskell, C, and D come to mind. You could also argue that Python has multiple standard libraries because it has different implementations that effectively can’t use some aspects of the normal stdlib (PyPy). Then there’s Java: SE, EE, and ME are the same language with different sets of functionality in the standard libraries.
Out of curiosity, have you tried OP’s project setup?
Also, there is only one OCaml standard library–the one that comes bundled with OCaml. The other ‘standard libraries’, Batteries Jane Street’s Core, are optional add-ons made for specific purposes.
I haven’t tried OP’s setup, but honestly it seems even worse than what I had. I pretty much followed this: https://ocaml.org/learn/tutorials/get_up_and_running.html. I ended up using Oasis, which was just awful, every time I added a file or dependency I had to fiddle with the config until everything would build again, but at least there wasn’t an entirely separate language.
((name main) ; The name of your entry file, minus the .ml
(public_name OcamlTestProj) ; Whatever you like, as far as I can tell
(libraries (lib)))) ; Express a dependency on the "lib" module
Note the comment, “as far as I can tell”. To me, that’s a terrible sign. A person who has gone to a reasonable amount of effort to explain how to set up a project can’t even figure out the tooling completely.
Jbuilder is quite nicely documented (see http://jbuilder.readthedocs.io/en/latest/). The public_name defines the name of the produced executable in the install context. It does not take much effort to read it from there
Of course you still have to find out that Jbuilder exists, which the official site doesn’t seem to mention… I am lazy, I don’t like choices, I just want one, blessed tool that works more or less out-of-the-box if you follow a set of relatively simple rules (I’m even OK with wrapping the tool in a simple, handwritten Makefile, which is what I do in Go). I’m not arrogant enough to think that the way I prefer is the “right” way, in fact in some cases it would be dead wrong (like for extremely complex, multi-language software projects), but that explains why I dropped OCaml for hobby stuff.
OK, but your criticism is that you have to find out that JBuilder exists, commenting on a post that tells you about JBuilder.
To be fair, jbuilder is very young (not even 1.0 yet actually) but it might become the “standard” build tool the OCaml community has been waiting for for years (decades?). Then clearly there will be more doc and pointers towards it.
Well obviously I know about it now, but it still isn’t terribly discoverable for someone new to the language. My actual point, and I probably didn’t make this as clear as I should have, sorry, is that in my experience OCaml isn’t very friendly to beginners, in part because its tooling story is kind of weak and fragmented.
Yeah. This is true. Especially on Windows. People are working on it but it’s slow and it’s taking time to consolidate all the disparate efforts. I myself am not getting terribly excited about OCaml native but funnily enough I am about BuckleScript (OCaml->JS compiler) because of its easy setup (npm i -g bs-platform) and incredible interop story.
npm i -g bs-platform
Others are getting equally into ReasonML ( https://reasonml.github.io/ )because it’s coming from a single source (Facebook) is starting to build a compelling tooling/documentation story.
I didn’t know about either of these, thanks!
OP here: I didn’t really make any effort to pursue documentation re: the public_name field, and I have really almost no production experience with OCaml whatsoever. I certainly have complaints about OCaml’s tooling, but I can assure you that any argument against it appealing to my authority is certainly flawed.
I wasn’t really appealing to your authority, in fact kind of the opposite. I don’t like using systems that converge to copy-paste magic, and that seems to be what you did, and is likely what I would do. I don’t want to use a weird programming language to configure my project, I want something simple, with happy defaults, that can be understood easily.
I guess I generally prefer convention over configuration in this case, and that doesn’t seem to be what the OCaml community values, which is why I gave up on it. I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong, it’s just not a good fit for me, particularly for hobby projects.