/prog/ - what is your excuse for not using OCAML?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 14:21

it's blazing fast. strict (not like the other shit), french.

it supports:
functional style (yay)
imperative programing (because mutation is essential)
and a sane OOP (seriously is one sane OOP, is not ambitious is just useful)

pattern matching is great. i would love to see a OS with it's entire userland written in this.

but i don't why haven't catch on?, what is your excuse Prog

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 2:42

I prefer using Common Lisp, but I did learn O'Caml. I do like the language(the ML family), but I just find Lisp more comfortable for most general purpose programming.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 2:52

>>34
I don't think the ML circles have much to say about Ruby and certainly not like Lisp circles are notorious for hating on Perl and everything that is not Lisp (and half of everything that is Lisp.) There's just no concept of a threat.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:27

Symta:



sum [X@Xs] = X+Xs,r

C/C++:



int sum(int *Xs) {

  int I,S;

  for(S=I=0; I<Xs[-1]; I++) S+=Xs[I];

  return S;

}

OCaml:



let rec sum xs =

  match xs with

    | []       -> 0

    | x :: xs' -> x + sum xs'

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:38

i would love to see a OS with it's entire userland written in this
OCams --> GC --> slow

I like C++ more because it's faster. Maybe if they removed GC from OCaml I might reconsider.

Same problem with D.

GC is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:42

>>43
C++
US MENA std::aggregate

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:46

>>45
Learn to use plain fucking for-loops. They make life simpler.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 12:52

>>16
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU QUOTING

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 13:18

>>46
Learn to avoid side-effects. It makes life simpler.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 13:19

>>16
thinks maintainability and syntax are related

I bet you think Mandarin Chinese is "unreadable" too

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 15:30

>>43
You might want to read up on tail calls (and List.)

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 16:09

>>50
tail calls
Are those like booty calls?
*ba dum tss*

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 17:23

>>51
Yeah, you'll never manage either one.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 23:33

>>37
It's pretty domain specific. My field is in computer vision and machine learning. There is no way Ocaml will come close what Matlab and C/C++ has in terms of libraries and code. Good start would be bindings to OpenCV, I guess, but Ocaml would have to be really really popular for that to happen.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 23:48

>>49
Lets maintain some lisp code
())()-(*---)+)-)-(*(++?(**+?(*((((+(++)))))))))))))))))))

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-15 0:59

>>53
Yeah, that is fairly specific. Based on the bindings I've found I can only conclude that most OCaml users are not afraid of writing their own bindings, or there are a few prolific people out there writing bindings for the hell of it.

Either way, you're probably not going to see bindings pop up unless you write them yourself, or OCaml becomes more popular like you suggest.

what is your excuse for not using OCAML?

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-13 14:21

41 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 2:42

42 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 2:52

43 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:27

44 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:38

45 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:42

46 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 6:46

47 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 12:52

48 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 13:18

49 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 13:19

50 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 15:30

51 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 16:09

52 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 17:23

53 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 23:33

54 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-14 23:48

55 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-15 0:59