gprogrammerhumor·Programmer Humorbygpopides Brought to you by the ocaml gangView original on lemmy.world190Comments13Reply
FFishFace replylemmy.world4Hide 4 repliesYeah but it doesn't cross function boundaries so it's more limited.13Reply
KKnusper replyfeddit.de1Hide 1 replyIn other words, in OCaml, you don't have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those. It's useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I'm glad that Rust is more explicit here.23Reply
voxel replysopuli.xyzyeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)6Reply
ffl42v replylemmy.ml1Hide 1 replyIt's not like it's more limited, it's just so that it can yell at you when you return not what you said you're going to, IMO4Reply
meteokr community.adiquaints.moe3Hide 3 repliesFeel like this joke would work better with TS | JS. Since that's the point of the former. I don't know how rust and ocaml are related?11Reply
KKnusper replyfeddit.de1Hide 1 replyThe initial creator of Rust, Graydon Hoare, took lots of inspiration from OCaml. In fact, the first Rust compiler was written in OCaml.18Reply
meteokr replycommunity.adiquaints.moeI appreciate that fun fact. The meme now makes more sense.8Reply
ccharje replylemmy.mlJS doesn't do any type inference. Ocaml Connor l type checker knows all the types and is completely type safe without type annotations.1Reply
Magister lemmy.worldI remember learning Caml in (French) university in 1996, it was brand new and from INRIA guys, I understood about nothing about it :)5Reply
xxmunk sh.itjust.worksOCaml stronk... it's an amazing language that more people should be familiar with!4Reply
13 replies
rudt has implicit typing by default for variables tho...?
Yeah but it doesn't cross function boundaries so it's more limited.
In other words, in OCaml, you don't have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those.
It's useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I'm glad that Rust is more explicit here.
yeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache
also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)
It's not like it's more limited, it's just so that it can yell at you when you return not what you said you're going to, IMO
OCaml allows you to specify return types, but doesn't force you to.
Why am I laughing? I don't know any of these languages?
Feel like this joke would work better with TS | JS. Since that's the point of the former. I don't know how rust and ocaml are related?
The initial creator of Rust, Graydon Hoare, took lots of inspiration from OCaml. In fact, the first Rust compiler was written in OCaml.
I appreciate that fun fact. The meme now makes more sense.
JS doesn't do any type inference. Ocaml Connor l type checker knows all the types and is completely type safe without type annotations.
I remember learning Caml in (French) university in 1996, it was brand new and from INRIA guys, I understood about nothing about it :)
OCaml stronk... it's an amazing language that more people should be familiar with!