If you think generics have to be complicated, study OCaml’s generics. In particular, check out how hash tables and binary trees work without having to deal with typeclasses. I can hardly think of a language that gets “worse is better” better.
-
-
(Also add support for multithreading of course.)
-
So, ReasonML plus multicore pretty much?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think one issue you'll encounter is switching from tail-recursive iteration to refs everywhere would make the optimizer sad; this has been addressed to some degree recently but I'm not sure to which
-
Yeah, I don’t think I’d literally use the OCaml compiler in the long term. Maybe as a bootstrap, though.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
why drop the object system ?
-
it doesn't really justify the complexity it adds to the compiler however: I think to really emulate Go we'd need to drop the *class* system and keep the *object* system
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't that just… Rust
-
not really? Rust has typeclasses and monomorphization, OCaml doesn't, which simplifies it radically
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Also I wouldn’t have “ML” in the name (somewhat regretfully). It’s really easy to have people dismiss good languages as “academic”, especially the crowd that likes languages like Go. I wouldn’t want to fall into that trap. Yeah, it’s dumb, but this stuff matters :|
- 2 more replies
-
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.