[tacos]

Looks like solid work all around. But if we could weigh it relative to the advancements in C++ the last decade, it wouldn't even show up on the scale.

Red Hat could pay someone to do exactly what you're doing in many other languages with the exact same results. The only difference would be that the language in question would show up on the StackOverflow list of "most loved" or "most wanted" languages. Rust shows up in 50th place with less than 0.2% share and OCaml doesn't even make that list (TIOBE 9/2015).

Sounds argumentative, but is a genuine question: why have you chosen OCaml for this? What is so remarkable about it for this use case that 50+ more popular languages wouldn't do it?

Obviously there are downsides, so what is the upside?

[rwmj]

Did you read my reply? To quote: "easy linking to C libraries, and builds a native binary with no extra dependencies, speed ... safety, robustness, compact source code size" There are certainly many more popular languages, but few with that combination of advantages. The project started in 2009, so you should discount any languages which were not mature before that date.

There are a few people at Red Hat and outside who contribute. To my knowledge none had prior experience with OCaml, but it's pretty easy to pick up.

[zem]

even in 2015 i can only think of D, go and haskell that would work as viable alternatives.