Could an OCaml expert give a quick take on the view that if FP, why not go all the way and do Haskell instead? I mean, if "correct, efficient, beautiful" are attributes of OCaml (and I know opinions differ, but let's assume for a moment..) then shouldn't they be attributes of Haskell too, maybe even more so in some ways?
The person to look to for explanations of why OCaml/SML and not Haskell is Bob Harper. For example, the module system vs ad hoc polymorphism: https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/modules-mat... He also has in-depth critiques of laziness-by-default but the one link I found is a 404.
Apart from being tied with Jane Street's libraries, Real World OCaml is "deeper" in that it also talks about implementation details. This book has a more "introduction to functional programming via OCaml" vibe. Both are good textbooks with different emphases.
The main author Michael Clarkson also started a similar lecture series on Software Foundations using Rocq (Coq)[1]. Not sure if that's still updated though.
I would take the FP zealots more seriously if they stopped asserting that FP makes things more correct.
Zero evidence that this is the case.
I can tell you that debugging a compiler written in ML is a dumpster fire compared to debugging a compiler written in C++. If take C++ over any FP language for compilers any day of the week.
9 comments
[ 0.15 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0DsGHMPLUWVy9PjI9jOS...
The main author Michael Clarkson also started a similar lecture series on Software Foundations using Rocq (Coq)[1]. Not sure if that's still updated though.
[1]: https://github.com/clarksmr/sf-lectures
Zero evidence that this is the case.
I can tell you that debugging a compiler written in ML is a dumpster fire compared to debugging a compiler written in C++. If take C++ over any FP language for compilers any day of the week.