The smallest type change make entire APIs incompatible, hence a lot of pain in OCaml: forced upgrades, forced downgrades, crazy version update schedules, extra forks, reluctance to fix bad early choices that would break compatibility, etc. Types DIRECTLY cause library badness.
OCaml is probably worse than other typed languages in not having any good reflection (so far), in wantonly erasing types at runtime, without something like Scala TypeTags, or even just typeclasses, to make do. In any case, OCaml is deficient, and that *is* related to its types.
-
-
Types are great, but they have costs. Those who refuse to even see these costs are condemned to fully pay the highest option, with interests, and not be able to address any of the issues.
-
True. OTOH, incorrect or imprecise attribution of costs can very easily lead to erroneous design tradeoffs. I believe you conflated a lot of features under 'types' to make your argument. E.g. Why does a design decision for opaque modules or type erasure fall under 'types'?
- 1 more reply
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!