From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] Observations on OCaml vs. Haskell
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:08:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200409271408.51872.jgoerzen@complete.org> (raw)
I recently decided I ought to learn a bit about Haskell. I've done so,
and while it is remarkably similar to OCaml in many ways, there are a
few things I really like about Haskell. At first glance, to this
relative latecomer to both languages, the Haskell approach to these
things looks very appealing. I am wondering if you know of drawbacks
of their approach, and why the OCaml designers opted for something
different.
1. Haskell lists resemble OCaml Streams
This is, in fact, one of my main complaints about OCaml lists: that they
are a distinct type from OCaml streams. Streams have a lot of power,
and having to convert back and forth between the two doesn't always
make a lot of sense. I've doing things like written versions of map or
filter for streams, making them lazy, which results in a very powerful
approach to things like file reading, etc. It's annoying to not be
able to re-use all the existing list-related functions on streams.
In Haskell, there is no separate stream type; a list is a stream.
2. Haskell strings are lists of characters
It's annoying that strings aren't normally processed this way in OCaml,
and even more annoying that (^) or (::) cannot be used in pattern
matching over strings. I like Haskell's approach. The list
concatenation operator is the same as the string concatenation operator
in Haskell.
3. The Num typeclass
I've written several functions that can work with a "number-like" type.
I don't really care if I get an integer, Int32, Int64, float, or what.
But since these are all different types in OCaml, I am forced to care,
right down to using +, +., or Int64.add to perform basic arithmetic.
The Num typeclass in Haskell neatly solves that whole problem; I could
take a Num, use a unified set of operators, and produce the appropriate
result.
For #1 and #2, the only reasons I can think of for OCaml's approach
involve performance. For #3, I can't really come up with any good
reason, since one can always specify a type of Int or whatever in
Haskell anyway.
OCaml enlightenment appreciated :-)
Thanks,
John
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
next reply other threads:[~2004-09-27 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-27 19:08 John Goerzen [this message]
2004-09-27 20:24 ` Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla
2004-09-27 21:34 ` Danny Yoo
2004-09-28 7:22 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2004-09-28 18:02 ` Jon Harrop
2004-09-29 14:26 ` Brian Hurt
2004-09-29 14:20 ` Jon Harrop
2004-09-29 15:03 ` Dmitry Lomov
2004-09-28 10:10 ` [Caml-list] Caml monomorphisation (was Observations on OCaml vs. Haskell) Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
2004-09-28 12:01 ` Richard Jones
2004-09-28 17:50 ` Jon Harrop
2004-09-28 1:56 ` [Caml-list] Observations on OCaml vs. Haskell skaller
2004-09-28 9:31 ` Keith Wansbrough
2004-09-28 9:55 ` Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla
2004-09-27 21:11 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2004-09-28 1:32 ` Jacques GARRIGUE
2004-09-28 1:46 ` skaller
2004-09-28 8:27 ` Richard Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200409271408.51872.jgoerzen@complete.org \
--to=jgoerzen@complete.org \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox