[acjohnson55]

My biggest frustration with OCaml is having to deal with all of that cruft. I've learned many languages over the years, and I think I've just reached the point where I've lost patience with having to deal with what I would consider substandard syntactic elegance.

[tialaramex]

This sort of thing is why Rust's Editions are great and why Vittorio Romeo's Epochs (P1881) for C++ would have been the right choice.

I like Editions because of the cultural consequences, Rust's community assumes they can fix things and so they set out with that goal, even in cases where Editions won't quite do it - while the C++ community tends to accept the state of the language as a static fact and just "take it". But this sort of thing isn't about the cultural effects, it's a direct technical achievement.

If OCaml had Editions, it could say OK, that syntax was a bit rubbish, here's 2023 syntax which fixes two things everybody hated, get back to us over the next few years and we'll decide if there are further changes needed. Without losing all existing OCaml software or demanding expensive rewrites.

Even better, changes of the sort in Editions are mechanical. It can take a bit of creative work to do it nicely but the transformations can be automated, so people who have "old OCaml" and wish they had "new OCaml" can push a button and get on with their day. Having both this and the feature which keeps old code working unchanged, add up to an experience where the community can move forward, on syntax at least, and not be trapped with yesterday's mistakes.

[zumu]

The syntax is a little unorthodox, but just having a literal syntax _at all_ for things like lists/arrays beats having to call `new` on some random class you have to import and then doing a bunch of in place updates to add all the data.

[dmitriid]

In this respect C# has knocked it out of the park with shorthand initialisation syntax for arrays and objects. But it's newer and could look at what other languages are doing/not doing in that regard.

[cardanome]

I don't mind the cruft. I think a bit of harmless quirks can give a language character.

It actually makes the learning easier. Now that I know the story why, I have memorized how elements are seperated in OCaml for probably the rest of my life. I just need to remember the story.

Plus not reusing symbols for multiple syntactic purposes actually fits nicely into the general Ocaml philosophy. Plus is makes my complexity-hating, minimalist heart happy.

Though I am at that point in my life where I don't really care about syntax that much to begin with. Yes syntactic complexity matters. How fast it can be parsed, how easy macros are implemented, these things can matter but the actual syntax: boring. White-space sensitive or not, curly braces or begin/end and all that stuff is so dull. I am happy with whatever.

[p4bl0]

If using semicolons instead of commas is enough of a showstopper for you it's probably that you just don't have a need for the language :).

[acjohnson55]

Honestly, I'd argue that few people do. At a previous employer, we used it in situations where would have been much better off with a more mainstream language, in my opinion.

Of course, there are few situations that require any particular language.

[p4bl0]

Of course. But for example if you are writing a compiler, an interpreter, or anything that has to manipulate something that resembles a structured tree of meaningful data, OCaml is particularly well suited :).

[int_19h]

Any language with ADTs and pattern matching is reasonably suited for that task, and unlike 20 years ago, these aren't obscure features anymore, so there are many options.

[WastingMyTime89]

Yes but OCaml syntax is Pascal inspired. It’s always going to be a lot more elegant that anything inspired by the horror that is the B syntax. It’s just less familiar to people who grew up using C, Java or JavaScript.

[yawaramin]

One man's 'cruft' and 'substandard syntactic elegance' is another man's 'decades of backwards-compatibility preserved'.

People are of course free to use the newest languages with the shiniest syntax (and many do), it's just that they pay the price by using untested, unproven languages when they could have been using ones which have been battle-tested in production for literally decades.

[toolslive]

what's your stance on the curly braces (which is also a consequence of early parser technology) ?

[galangalalgol]

What are some good alternatives? I don't find begin and end as easy to spot at a glance if the indentation is off. I'm not sure why I don't like indentation based, but I don't in practice. A good IDE helps me care less, and I don't think I could write python well without a good IDE anyway.

[acjohnson55]

I think they're often helpful for reading, but I admire what Scala did in Scala 3 to eliminate their necessity.

[yawaramin]

Scala 3 actually doesn't really eliminate braces in any meaningful way. Sure, they're optional for delimiting traits, classes, and objects. But braces are heavily used for block scoping in Scala too. E.g. a very common pattern:

    retry(Seq(1.second, 2.second, 3.second)) {
      // some action that can fail
    }

This still requires the braces as of right now. I think the syntax changes will just confuse more people than it helps, at least for the time being.

[AzzieElbab]

That is a curried parameter in {}. Those braces are not for scoping. They basically define a lambda. You can probably use () instead

you can also use import language.experimental.fewerBraces with nightly builds to write code like this

List(1,2,3).map: c => ...

[yawaramin]

The braces here absolutely denote a new scope. You can't bind vals inside parentheses, for example. You can inside braces.

> You can probably use () instead

I would rather not as using braces for the final argument has been the Scala idiom for a long time now.

[AzzieElbab]

I see your point. However you don’t have to define that thunk inline. You can write it separately and just pass it by name retry(…)(thunk). Not sure what signature of the retry method looks like.