1. Gambit Scheme ports are so much nicer than the disparate and underpowered OCaml channels and buffers. 2. Type-descriptors and macros are so much nicer at generating I/O handlers than either manual typed combinators or ppx transformers. 3. All the monad cruft, gone.
-
-
17. I never understood why people complained so much about the OCaml syntax, until I had to use it. Ugly, indents poorly. Case-sensitive, ugh. And is there really no way to specify a module for an infix operator without including the operands?
-
18. OCaml has no typeclasses, so you keep shadowing modules with newer modules that extend them… which is not modular. All the troubles of class inheritance, except without the benefits of late-bound fixed-points. To avoid copy/paste you need plenty of higher-order scaffolding.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
GADTs without type-level computation aren't that a game changer, OTOH when you add type-level computation things can get pretty nice.
-
e.g. Last year
@gusbicalho and I built this decision theory thingy. This code builds a causal graph, removing nodes fails to type check the graph, because dependencies aren't met. GADTs are used everywhere, but phantom types as witnesses are beautiful. https://github.com/DecisionTheory/DecisionTheory/blob/master/test/ParfitsHitchhiker.hs#L63-L80 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!