I do. I like it a lot when I'm doing anything heavily algorithmic, or discrete math (I do most of my ProjectEuler problems in OCaml for instance, as well as a big part of the simulations I run for my research).
I don't really use it for anything script-like, or for things with a lot of UI work or IOs. It's not that it can't be done, but in my experience, the benefits it brings are not worth the annoyance.
I don't think it's a language everyone needs to know. I do think however that everyone that codes a lot should learn at least one heavily functional language, but any would do. If you word with a lot of discrete math or theoretical computer science however, knowing a bit of OCaml or another ML language is probably a good thing.
>>7836649 I haven't tried it. From what I've seen, it has a lot of similarities to OCaml. I went through various list of pros&cons of one versus the other, and eventually I think that for my use, they don't justify switching. However if you're planning on learning one but haven't started yet, I'd recommend finding a few comparisons from advocates of both languages, just to see if there's something you really like or really dislike in one of them.
>>7836646 > I think it has no lazyness Yeah. No lazy evaluation built in the language. If you really need it, you can have ad-hoc lazy evaluation that look okay by encapsulating calls you want to be lazy.
>>7836683 Tell me more about the module system in layman. >>7836640 Yeah, so far, the only differences are the module system and no lazyness apart from Haskell. Does the module system warrant me to lean ocami alone? Also, I don't fully comprehend what it means by "module system". I've just seen it as a buzzword in /g/.
>>7836992 so you can map over modules and have generic modules that can act for any type? >>7837162 honestly, I tried looking for a deeper understanding of monads, but someone told me that I shouldn't worry about it, because there's nothing more to it. To my understanding, monads are types that encapsulate other concrete types (just like functors), but also support state keeping with (>>=) Also, what do you mean a lot of its power is buried in monads only thing I can think that needs monads is list comprehensions
>>7836558 I do use it a lot for hobby projects; I've even maintained a MinGW partial port for my own amusement for a while. But I feel really aggravated by its graviting towards linux-only; you need extra actions to install it on Mac and most of the important stuff never worked on Windows.
Basically, Haskell is way more elegant but OCaml delivers.
Thread replies: 17 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 512901
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.