undefined | Better HN

0 pointskrat0sprakhar10y ago0 comments

> Because there's functional as in only using pure functions (Haskell, ocaml)

This is not true. Having written a good amount of OCaml I would argue that programming with side-effects in OCaml is extremely approachable - almost as much as Clojure. There are mutable data structures in the stdlib (Array, Hashtbl) and IO etc. is straightforward. Like Clojure, there exists a ref type which can be easily mutated. It's one of the reasons why OCaml strikes as an extremely pragmatic language to me.

0 comments

catnaroek10y ago

I'd distinguish between (at least) three degrees of “purity”:

(0) Absolutely anything goes. Examples: Racket (in the REPL), Lisp, Clojure, Scala, Erlang, etc.

(1) Values are immutable, but any computation might have any effect. Examples: Standard ML, OCaml (mostly), Racket (mostly).

(2) Values are immutable, and computations are type-annotated with their possible effects. Examples: Haskell, Idris, Ur/Web.

i_s10y ago

Pretty strange that you put Clojure in the "anything goes" category when it has been the clear leader when it comes to immutability. Lots of those languages you put in the other categories don't even have persistent data structures in their standard library.

catnaroek10y ago

Here is why: http://pastebin.com/t3Q3CW4j

This is particularly infuriating because the proper way to handle bound variables is already known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index .

2 more replies

rdtsc10y ago

> Absolutely anything goes. Examples: Racket (in the REPL), Lisp, Clojure, Scala, Erlang, etc.

Well you can't mutate variables and data in Erlang. (Try X=1,X=2 in a repl, it will fail). There is a thing called process dictionary but it is frowned upon. Concurency is handled by processes. But that's a different thing.

Scarbutt10y ago

leaving runtime asides, which do you enjoy more Ocaml or Clojure?

krat0sprakharOP10y ago

To add to ohnomrbil's succinct reply, I absolutely enjoy being scolded by OCaml's compiler. The type inference is just marvelous and the code is almost as concise as Python etc. OTOH, the library ecosystem for OCaml is not even close to the stuff that's available for Clojure.

ohnomrbill10y ago

I use both, for different things. Clojure is more easily concurrent, and I love ClojureScript, so I tend to use it for web applications. OCaml is extremely useful for native code (I write a lot of personal productivity tools in OCaml).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskrat0sprakhar10y ago0 comments

> Because there's functional as in only using pure functions (Haskell, ocaml)

0 comments

catnaroek10y ago

I'd distinguish between (at least) three degrees of “purity”:

(0) Absolutely anything goes. Examples: Racket (in the REPL), Lisp, Clojure, Scala, Erlang, etc.

(1) Values are immutable, but any computation might have any effect. Examples: Standard ML, OCaml (mostly), Racket (mostly).

(2) Values are immutable, and computations are type-annotated with their possible effects. Examples: Haskell, Idris, Ur/Web.

i_s10y ago

catnaroek10y ago

Here is why: http://pastebin.com/t3Q3CW4j

This is particularly infuriating because the proper way to handle bound variables is already known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index .

2 more replies

rdtsc10y ago

> Absolutely anything goes. Examples: Racket (in the REPL), Lisp, Clojure, Scala, Erlang, etc.

Scarbutt10y ago

leaving runtime asides, which do you enjoy more Ocaml or Clojure?

krat0sprakharOP10y ago

ohnomrbill10y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse