OCaml

So I'm looking at OCaml, but I'm having some reservations.

First is the relationship with Haskell. They seem to share some of the same ideas, with Haskell being the more `modern' language, but OCaml being more pragmatic. Has Haskell mostly obsoleted OCaml, or do they occupy separate niches?

Then there's the general suitability. I'm not too taken with the syntax, it seems verbose, yet not particularly readable, and in fact rather confused and arbitrary. And the people who use it always seem to feel the need to point out that they used some fraction or another of the lines of code a corresponding program written in C did, which strikes me as a kind of insecurity.

Has anybody used OCaml in a situation where it shined? Is it good for anything but parsers?

If you don't like it don't use it.

ML is generally nice for making compilers and theorem provers.
I find the kind of thinking required to write in them a bit strange and rigid, that's why I don't use ML-based languages that much and instead opt for dynamicly typed languages which allow me to mold the idea gradually, however if you can imagine the full type tree(s) in your mind before you even write the code, then it should be good for you.

>>2
But then I could hardly use anything! :(
Except maybe chocolate ice cream. ^__^

Thread status changed from open to closed: resolution set to WONTFLAME.

>>4
Maybe programming isn't for you. In particular, /prog/ membership has the prerequisite: has a hardon for one or more of: C, Lisp, Python, Haskell. (And preferably also: finds distasteful two or more of: Perl, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, Java, Sepples, C, Lisp, FIOC, HASKAL. This is not a strict requirement.)

>>6
IWT

>>6
As a typical /prog/rider, I enjoy the following languages: Python, C, Scheme, Javascript, Lua, and I dislike the following languages: Sepples, Java, Javascript, HASKAL, FIOC, Lua. For other languages not listed, I remain more or less neutral.
_{^{This post contains the following number of errors: 0}}

>>8
^{This post contains the following number of errors: 0}

...ascript, Lua, and I disl...
...ascript, Lua; and I disl...
ftfy

>>9
That was intentional. YHBT.

>>6
I'm a bit of a black sheep.

Like: Lua, Python, Scheme, C, C++, C#
Dislike: Java, C++, Ruby, PHP, Perl

>>10
I believe that it's Y who HBT, because that should indeed be a coma in >>8. You wouldn't put a semicolon there because of the "and."

>>12
Not if a comma-delimited series precedes it.

>>8
You should love Javascript if you like Scheme and C. It's a Lisp-like language with C style syntax.

>>13
Funnily enough, Lua permits you to use commas and semicolons as terminators, not delimiters, so that generating code is much easier.

>>14
What if I want a portable assembler with S-expressions?

>>14
Javascript is a Lisp in the same way that PHP is a Perl.

>>17
That's harsh man.

>>18

Seriously.  Perl isn't compiled.

I have a raging hard-on for:
_{•U MENA HASKAL
•Scheme
•Factor}

I despise:
_{•Java
•Common Rispu
•Sepples}


#lang racket
(define b (λ () (display "BLOOD ") (&)))
(define & (λ () (display "& ") (t)))
(define t (λ () (display "THUNDER. ") (M)))
(define M (λ () (display "THOR'S MOTHER, ") (b)))
(M)

>>16
http://www.stripedgazelle.org/joey/assembler.html

a hardon for:
Common Lisp (excellent base language and base library, features fit within each other very well, allows me a great deal of freedom in expressing my programming ideas, minimizes the amount of work I have to do, and overall excellent when it comes to interactive development and debugging. Fits almost all of my high-level needs)
C (fits my low-level needs well enough, life would be much harder without it)

finds distasteful two or more of:
PHP (Terrible! I hate myself when I have to write in it. Autoconversion, inconsistent language and library, overall messy language with terrible design choices.)
Sepples (Syntax soup, large amount of features which don't exactly fit right. Time waster and a huge pain to debug and learn.)
C (I wish there was something better for doing what C does, but I don't know of anything else. It's a love - hate relationship. )

The other languages are placed on less extreme positions.
Mild like:
Scheme (excellent minimal Lisp. Too minimal for me to write most of my software in, but great for embedding in tiny systems or reimplementing it. Writing metacircular evaluators is also much more easier than in more advanced lisps. )
O'Caml ( Excellent for writing parsers and compilers, but I can't get into the mindset needed to write largescale stuff in it. I'm too used to the Lisp way  (and more happy with it) to go back to it now. )
Haskell ( similar thoughts as O'Caml, but with the appropriate differences, it's also a bit too 'pure' for me for using it for regular apps, but the concepts it teaches are quite useful. )

Factor (Larger-scalish Forth, it's neat for certain applications, for example, assemblers/disassemblers)
Prolog (parsers, great pattern matching, but too limited for real-world usage. makes a good DSL for some domains)
Lua (cool free emebeddable language)

Feels neutral, indifferent or confused/mixed about:
FIOC (too much BDSM, but good support and libraries)
Ruby (SLOW AS FUCK, but good variety of features, however still not Lispy enough)
Javascript (would have been better off as a Scheme, de-facto Javascript "standards" are a mess, but there's decent compatibility libraries and compilers from *insert favorite language* to js)
Java, C# (large library which is a good thing, but the language forces you to think too much in one direction. I'm not a fan of the "patterns" that Java has caused. Many of them disappear with the right language tools.)

Slight dislike:
Perl (too much syntactic soup for my taste and I find autoconversion highly distateful, but it's still much better than PHP)

>>16
http://sassy.sourceforge.net/

>>6
This is too true, and I don't really get why /prog/lodytes hate ruby so much.

Also,

Like: C, Scheme, Python
Dislike: Perl, PHP, Java, Sepples

>>20
It's a racket they renamed it that.
BADUM-TSSSSS

Between the OCaml program I was looking at having integer overflows and being generally buggy, and stumbling across http://sds.podval.org/ocaml-sucks.html, I have been suitably unimpressed and will be discontinuing my pursuit for the time being.

>>27
I know you're not really from around these parts so I'll let it slide, but please don't call yourself that.

assembly, C, Lua, Scheme

I intend to learn some ML language, but it will probably be Standard ML, not Haskell.

>>28
Prithee, why not?

>>30
YHBT

(/prog/rider? >>27-san)
=> #f

Dearest >>30-san It is customary to call oneself >>1-san if one wishes to identify oneself as the former poster of a thread, thank you.

>>32
s/n I/n, i
Oh, ^H_AX.

>>32-33
No one cares about your `customs.' Go fuck yourself.

>>34
I care about these customs. Therefore you are worng.

>>34
They're customs, , uh, it's customary to care about them. Go fuck you're dead dof.

Xarn should write up that shibboleth speech like he promised he would.

>>34
For a Homosexual American that does not very much care for customs you sure do quite a few customary things. For instance:

• You've written the comma inside the quotation marks, as it is customary in English. Although frequently avoided by seasoned /prog/riders
• You've used a single link that englobes several posts rather than a series of links to each (the latter being customary in the imageboards due to poor implementation—Terrible !)
 ›Please be reminded that it is good etiquette to use >>32,33 instead, as the series consists of only two elements.
• You've made marvellous use of your [sage][/sage] tags.
• You've played the ``Faggot'' card.

Clearly you do care for IHB  T traditions of yore.

>>32
No.  You aren't allowed to identify yourself in any way.  There is no reason to identify oneself as the ``Oh Pee.''

Disregard that, I suck cocks.