|
|
|
|
|
by rkido
2737 days ago
|
|
Example of OCaml's object system in use by the creator of OCaml: https://github.com/xavierleroy/cryptokit/blob/master/src/cry... OCaml's object and class systems are excellent; I prefer them to just about anything else. They rarely get used for the simple reason that algebraic types, functors, and first-class modules are better suited to modeling almost any kind of domain logic. Also, I like OCaml's extremely simple and direct syntax. I'm fine with F#'s implicit `in`, though it requires whitespace-sensitivity. I think ReasonML went in the wrong direction, cluttering it up with curly braces and ubiquitous tuple-like syntax for function arguments. OCaml actually has excellent tooling — among the best — and some (but not many) great libraries. What it lacks most is great documentation... |
|
I don't think even the core OCaml devs would claim this. Rust (and Java and Microsoft) toolchains are examples of excellent tooling. OCaml, not so much.
That said, the tooling situation today in OCaml is much better than it was a few years ago, which is real progress.