1

Topic: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Recently "with a view of erudition increase" undertook learning OCaml. Language very much was pleasant, directly such artful and clever python with compilation. And here it became interesting, and why it did not fly up and did not become one of mainstream languages? Purely functional it you will not name, imperative programming in it is, thus the order of calculations in it direct, instead of lazy, i.e. always it is possible to predict, in what order commands will be executed. An output of types - simply remarkable idea. But at all these fine characteristics in a mainstream it is not present, well unless in a type F#, but it more recently. So why it did not win the place in the sun?

2

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Outstripped the time?

3

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, LaptevVV, you wrote: LVV> Outstripped the time? I do not know. LISP here it outstripped time, there was no powerful technics for performance of the dynamic code. And here OCaml it is very pragmatic. And besides I will repeat, at it not purely functional paradigm, possibility to write the imperative code at it is. It originated on your storage, can remember something from events of that time?

4

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

LVV>> Outstripped the time? M> I do not know. LISP here it outstripped time, there was no powerful technics for performance of the dynamic code. And here OCaml it is very pragmatic. And besides I will repeat, at it not purely functional paradigm, possibility to write the imperative code at it is. M> it originated on your storage, can remember something from events of that time? Well, 85 year - a birth... We heard only about it. And then Gorbachev began and became not before interesting affairs in programming... About ML I learned much later from the biography of Virta.

5

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Recently "with a view of erudition increase" undertook learning OCaml. I think that a principal cause - it is necessary to nobody. It does not introduce anything special, is thus difficult enough and (during age-old times, something can already and changed) . The only thing where it like as  got accustomed - prototypes / the first versions of compilers.

6

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, kaa.python, you wrote: KP> It does not introduce anything special, is thus difficult enough and (during age-old times, something can already and changed) . The only thing where it like as  got accustomed - prototypes / the first versions of compilers. An automatic output of types at static typification it is very quite good. As a matter of fact, you write on it as on a python, and he for you searches for types. Complexity - it is possible, it is difficult to me to tell, as though I reacted to it about five years ago, and now I already have experience to take any language and simply to study it.  not defect that is successfully proved by a python. There is a huge problem space in which the multithreading is not necessity. And parallel data handling at level of processes in  is possible. While only poverty of standard library seems to me powerful argument, but for a long time already is Core.

7

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Recently "with a view of erudition increase" undertook learning OCaml. Language very much was pleasant, directly such artful and clever python with compilation. And here it became interesting, and why it did not fly up and did not become one of mainstream languages? Purely functional it you will not name, imperative programming in it is, thus the order of calculations in it direct, instead of lazy, i.e. always it is possible to predict, in what order commands will be executed. An output of types - simply remarkable idea. But at all these fine characteristics in a mainstream it is not present, well unless in a type F#, but it more recently. So why it did not win the place in the sun? You it is direct with Lippertom simultaneously - http://ericlippert.com/2016/02/01/west-of-house/

8

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> the Automatic output of types at static typification it is very quite good. As a matter of fact, you write on it as on a python, and he for you searches for types. "The automatic output of types at static typification" is in a C ++ - the Author turns out: Evgeny. Panasyuk Date: 07.06.15 as on Python'.

9

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, Evgeny. Panasyuk, you wrote: EP> "the Automatic output of types at static typification" is in a C ++ - the Author turns out: Evgeny. Panasyuk Date: 07.06.15 as on Python'. open Core.Std;; let add x y = x + y;; let sub x y = x - y;; let apply f l = f (l);; let () = printf "%d\n" (apply apply apply add 1 2); printf "%d\n" (apply apply sub 11 2);;; Pluses it is necessary to ask each time (auto) that it deduced types. Still it would be interesting to compare time of appearance of an automatic output of types in pluses and .

10

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: did not outstrip, and distracted. Frenchmen - perverts, at first  SML, then started to push in it any interesting features, and with absolutely eclectic syntax, and without thinking about an infrastructure and community. For example?

11

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Recently "with a view of erudition increase" undertook learning OCaml. Language very much was pleasant, directly such artful and clever python with compilation. And here it became interesting, and why it did not fly up and did not become one of mainstream languages? Purely functional it you will not name, imperative programming in it is, thus the order of calculations in it direct, instead of lazy, i.e. always it is possible to predict, in what order commands will be executed. An output of types - simply remarkable idea. But at all these fine characteristics in a mainstream it is not present, well unless in a type F#, but it more recently. So why it did not win the place in the sun? Well, we tell so, I would not began to use OCaml in the industrial code by following reasons: 1. At it insufficiently developed ecosystem 2. There are no distinct warranties of stability of language. The compiler upcoming version can cease to compile the existing code 3. If Inria stops to be engaged in it, language dies

12

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, Evgeny. Panasyuk, you wrote: EP> "the Automatic output of types at static typification" is in a C ++ - the Author turns out: Evgeny. Panasyuk Date: 07.06.15 as on Python'. Not is, and there were 20 years later. The question as I understand, about "then", now OCaml is completely not necessary.

13

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, novitk, you wrote: N> not is, and there were 20 years later. A question as I understand, about "then". I.e. not why it now does not fly up, here it is clear, it overtook on a row of parameters (community, an ecosystem), and nobody pushes it. N> now OCaml it is completely not necessary. It is necessary. Such as OCaml, LISP, Haskell is a well of wisdom for programmers. From these languages permanently something pull out in mainstream from what last become better.

14

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Pluses it is necessary to ask each time (auto) that it deduced types. Than it in essence differs from necessity to write let?

15

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: N>> now OCaml it is completely not necessary. M> it is necessary. Such as OCaml, LISP, Haskell is a well of wisdom for programmers. From these languages permanently something pull out in mainstream from what last become better. A keyword "now". In 96th it was necessary, now is not present. Now with it to potter sense is not present, to take better at once Haskel or /#.

16

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: For example, syntax of units, objects and polymorphic variants. As though three different commands invented. And yes, too paid attention, but for the present did not solve, it is pleasant to me or not.

17

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, DarkEld3r, you wrote: DE> Hello, monax, you wrote: M>> Pluses it is necessary to ask each time (auto) that it deduced types. DE> than it in essence differs from necessity to write let? Under the link from Evgeny. Panasyuk much more auto, than at me let. And different it is things basically, for that matter.

18

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, novitk, you wrote: N> Hello, monax, you wrote: N>>> now OCaml it is completely not necessary. M>> it is necessary. Such as OCaml, LISP, Haskell is a well of wisdom for programmers. From these languages permanently something pull out in mainstream from what last become better. N> a keyword "now". N> In 96th it was necessary, now is not present. Now with it to potter sense is not present, to take better at once Haskel or /#.  another absolutely. How much I understood, lazy calculations in  puzzle to people because to force it to create side-effect difficult. However, it while only on responses, it was not possible to study it yet. A rock looked 4-5 years ago. Read the book on a rock. It then amazed me with the , well directly in the heart. Even special keywords for the description of impurity at them were. And then I waited couple of weeks and tried to make pleasant in a native python. Here at a rock began to look differently, . And still JVM me then frightened off. But since then transited a lot of time, and for a rock it is necessary to come on-new. F# is, consider, OCaml. Only they added there null and connected with.net. Like as people get accustomed and even use, but for me there is a big lack - MS. I.e. under  I in any way will not get it ( it is not counted, this strange thing), and under  I just and work. So for passage on F# there should be something not ordinary that I spat all knowledge in a linuh-ecosystem and passed in . Here or me it will be necessary to carry out the task which here 100 % well lay down on +, but does not lay down at all on +, or F# should offer to me such wild advantages that without it in any way. But it will not be, and  is "with a view of erudition increase", on  it did not gather to drag yet.

19

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Haskel another absolutely. How much I understood, lazy calculations in  puzzle to people because to force it to create side-effect difficult. However, it while only on responses, it was not possible to study it yet. If you want not " a head", and the maximum efficiency I advise to remain on the Python. Dynamics till now  though rupture also is reduced. M> but since then transited a lot of time, and for a rock it is necessary to come on-new. A rock - the bad language.  better and much more, but it the best of applicable in practice.

20

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, Evgeny. Panasyuk, you wrote: EP> "the Automatic output of types at static typification" is in a C ++ - the Author turns out: Evgeny. Panasyuk Date: 07.06.15 as on Python'. auto it is necessary on let to replace, and will be : let add = [] (let x, let y)...

21

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Pluses it is necessary to ask each time (auto) that it deduced types. It is simple  argument. And in ocaml it is necessary let to write each time.

22

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, uncommon, you wrote: U> auto it is necessary on let to replace, and will be : U> U> let add = [] (let x, let y)... U> the Branch on a subject let the Author: Evgeny. Panasyuk Date: 14.04.15.

23

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> And here it became interesting, and why it did not fly up and did not become one of mainstream languages? Because the community  appreciates only the languages similar on .

24

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, monax, you wrote: M> Pluses it is necessary to ask each time (auto) that it deduced types. It is a trifle if there is a choice between mainstream language and exotic. By the way, in Haskell' even let it is not necessary to write. M> Still it would be interesting to compare time of appearance of an automatic output of types in pluses and . As the mechanism an automatic output of types already was in ISO a C ++ 98, and in compilers even earlier. But it was accessible to a small row of constructions. New versions accordingly expanded applicability area.

25

Re: Why did not fly up OCaml?

Hello, T4r4sB, you wrote: TB> Because the community  appreciates only the languages similar on . Let the holywar begin? Knead, , fingers, we begin ?