OCamlPro Blog

Love a good cheatsheet that actually respects the concept of being a SINGLE, fixed-layout page: http://www.ocamlpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ocaml-lang.pdf It's something of a lost art in the paperless and HTML era of documentation.

> The goal is that we can play Sudoku in TypeScript while the type checker complains about mistakes. This is not about implementing a Sudoku solver. That goal could be extended to implement a Sudoku solver in the type system. One such solver was described at https://ocamlpro.com/blog/2017_04_01_ezsudoku/ for OCaml. TLDR: Your compiler can report the solution as an error message if your language supports refutation and has enough type machinery to accurately model Sudoku. Having said that, I don’t think a Sudoku solver implementation embedded in a type system is practical (maybe fun for educational purposes though!)

Here's a similar article that I read recently about using Ocaml's type system to implement a sudoku solver: https://ocamlpro.com/blog/2017_04_01_ezsudoku/ The author defines types to represent a valid sudoku board, and then uses the obscure syntax `-> .` to tell the compiler that a pattern should be unreachable. There is no compiler error when he compiles an unsolvable input. But when there is a solution, the compiler provides it: ``` Error: This match case could not be refuted. Here is an example of a value that would reach it: Grid (A, B, C, D, C, D, A, B, B, A, D, C, D, C, B, A) ```

See also a post about OCamlPro experience on migrating some COBOL projects to use GnuCOBOL[1]. [1] https://ocamlpro.com/blog/2023_03_18_autofonce/

Flow is being ported to work on windows and there are now builds out there for it https://github.com/OCamlPro/flow & the binary downloads http://www.ocamlpro.com/pub/ocpwin/flow-builds/

Indeed using the improved OCaml inliner (http://www.ocamlpro.com/blog/2013/07/11/inlining-progress-report.html) on the original OCaml gives a speedup of 2.75.

> I don’t think you understand how F# implements units of measure. It’s not just another data type, they’re fully inferred and checked and work with generics Yes, units of measure are really cool, and I understand they support dimensional analysis out of the box. It's quite unique, and I fully agree that abstract types don't fully replace them. Just saying that that's what people do in OCaml. > I don’t think anyone would say Haskell does multicore the “wrong” way And it certainly is not something that I said. > OCaml as you say has had decades to solve these problems. The 'problems' being the lack of multicore support? As I said, this is not really stopping people from getting real work done in industry–see everyone using OCaml currently in highly concurrent and multi-process parallelized applications, or in fact even people using NodeJS, Python, Ruby. > the community is very small Correct, but it is definitely growing. > and the language evolution has been extremely conservative for the most part. Not so correct. There have been massive amounts of changes in the last few years: https://www.ocamlpro.com/2019/09/20/a-look-back-on-ocaml/ And this is not even taking into account the features which OCaml had before then beyond F#: - Polymorphic variant types - Structural subtyped object types - Named arguments - Optional arguments - Functors

Not saying it's the closest to what you have in mind, but you could look at the Emacs Tuareg mode for OCaml. Here is a reference card: http://www.ocamlpro.com/files/tuareg-mode.pdf If you are a SLIME fan, you might notice that some of the key bindings to interact with the toplevel (the OCaml word for "REPL") are identical in Tuareg. That said, although this will sound tongue-in-cheek: Having used Isabelle and Coq with their interactive editors, I find their approach better than a REPL. In these systems, you execute code directly from your source file, as opposed to (conceptually) sending snippets of code to a REPL. There is no concept of code you have written in the source (or the REPL) which is not synced up with the state of the REPL (or the source code, respectively). I wish other languages had modes like this. There seems to be one for Prolog, but I've never used it and don't know how well it works in practice: https://www.metalevel.at/ediprolog/

#5 of Build Tools and Runtime would cover that (encapsulating all global state into a runtime context). The ongoing multicore work at OCamlPro is taking this approach [1]. Erlang-style actors or lightweight processes would be my dream multicore scenario (no more monads for concurrent IO!), but that's likely too difficult to graft onto the current runtime, which is otherwise extremely well-done. Also, I'd really like checked exceptions. The omission of checked exceptions has always struck me as strange, given the emphasis on compile-time checking. Considering how fast exceptions are in OCaml, it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity -- it is faster to use exceptions for control flow [2] than matching on variants (such as Option), which usually involve an extra allocation + dereference, IIRC. [1] http://www.ocamlpro.com/pub/multi-runtime.pdf.tar.gz [2] Odd as it may sound, it's encouraged to use exceptions as a control-flow construct in OCaml, but that is falling out of favor in modern code as far as I can tell.

Companies using OCaml: https://ocaml.org/learn/companies.html What is OCaml used for? https://www.quora.com/What-is-OCaml-used-for?share=1 Further infos: awesome-ocaml - A curated collection of awesome OCaml tools, frameworks, libraries and articles: https://github.com/ocaml-community/awesome-ocaml OCamlPro Research and Development: https://www.ocamlpro.com/research-and-development/ OCaml Weekly News (RSS): http://alan.petitepomme.net/cwn/cwn.rss