cats-effect VS ocaml

Those benchmarks are using a snapshot version of cats-effect. I don't know where that one comes from, but previously they were using a snapshot from https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect/pull/3332 which had some issues (3.5-6581dc4, 70% performance degradation), which have since been resolved (see that PR for more info and comparative benchmarks).

Recently, CE3 has had similar issues reported across multiple repositories, almost an epidemic of reports!

The one advantage Rust has over Scala is that it detects data races at compile time, and that's a big time saver if you use low level thread synchronization. However, if you write pure FP code with ZIO or Cats Effect that's basically a non-issue anyway.

See also cats-effect and fs2. cats-effect gives you your IO Monad (and IOApp to run it with on supported platforms). fs2 is the ecosystem’s streaming library, which is much more pervasive in functional Scala than in Haskell. For example, http4s and Doobie are both based on fs2.

On the contrary, switching to the functional mindset, with something like Typelevel Scala3 and respective cats and cats-effect fs2 frameworks, helps to rethink a lot of designs and development approaches.

I think "better Haskell on JVM" (in contrast to "worse Haskell") is a good identity for Scala to have. (Please note that this is an intentional hyperbole.)

Of course, there are areas where Haskell is stronger than Scala (hint: modularity, crucial for good Software Engineering, is not one of them). And Scala has its own way of doing things, so just imitating Haskell won't work well.

Examples of this "better Haskell" are https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/ and https://zio.dev/ .

All together, Scala may be a better choice for you if you want to do Pure Functional Programming. And is definitely less risky (runs on JVM, Java libraries interop, IntelliJ, easy debugging, etc...).

None of the other languages you mentioned are viable in this sense (if also you want a powerful type system, which rules out Clojure).

I agree that Rust's identity is pretty clear: a modern language for use cases where only C or C++ could have been used before.

I would use Scala. I like FP and Scala comes with some awesome libraries for concurrent/async programming like Cats Effect or ZIO. Good choice for creating modern style micro-services to be run in the cloud (or even macro-services, Scala has a powerful module system, so it's made to handle large codebases).

https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/

https://zio.dev/

The language, the community and customs are great. You don't have to worry about nulls, things are immutable by default, domain modelling with ADTs and patter matching is pure joy.

The tooling available is from good to great and Scala is big enough that there are good libraries for typical if not vast majority of stuff and Java libs as a reliable fallback.

What took my interest is this (for both JVM and future multithreaded Scala native): https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect/discussions/3070 Having the same threads poll available IO events and execute callbacks should improve performance greatly

The author is the creator of Monix and implemented the first version of cats-effect. He knows what he is doing.

You want Kernmantle, which quite honestly shouldn't be hard to implement around Cats and cats-effect. In particular, although Kernmantle doesn't require the use of the Arrow typeclass, there happen to be Arrow (actually ArrowChoice) instances for both Function1 from the standard library and Kleisli from Cats itself, given a Monad instance for the Kleilsi's F[_] type parameter. In other words, we should be able to port Kernmantle from Haskell to Scala (with the Typelevel ecosystem) and instantly be able to use pretty much anything else from the Typelevel ecosystem, or wrapped with it, in our workflow graphs. Pure functions, monadic functions, applicative functions, GADTs with hand-written interpreters, any of it. I think this would be eminently worth doing.

> OCaml’s configure script is also “normal”

If that’s this OCaml, it has a configure.ac file in the root directory, which looks suspicious for an Autotools-free package: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml

You probably already know, but with OCaml 5 the only way to get flamegraphs working is to either:

* use framepointers [1]

* use LBR (but LBR has a limited depth, and may not work on on all CPUs, I'm assuming due to bugs in perf)

* implement some deep changes in how perf works to handle the 2 stacks in OCaml (I don't even know if this would be possible), or write/adapt some eBPF code to do it

OCaml 5 has a separate stack for OCaml code and C code, and although GDB can link them based on DWARF info, perf DWARF call-graphs cannot (https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/issues/12563#issuecomment-193...)

If you need more evidence to keep it enabled in future releases, you can use OCaml 5 as an example (unfortunately there aren't many OCaml applications, so that may not carry too much weight on its own).

[1]: I haven't actually realised that Fedora39 has already enabled FP by default, nice! (I still do most of my day-to-day profiling on an ~CentOS 7 system with 'perf --call-graph dwarf', I was aware that there was a discussion to enable FP by default, but haven't noticed it has actually been done already)

11. OCaml - $91,026

> It partially helps since it forces you to have types where they matters most: exported functions

But the problém the OP has is not knowing the types when reading the source (in the .ml file).

> How would it feels like to use list if only https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/stdlib/list.ml was available,

If the signature where in the source file (which you can do in OCaml too), there would be no problem - which is what all the other (for some definition of "other") languages except C and C++ (even Fortran) do.

No, really, I can't see a single advantage of separate .mli files at all. The real problém is that the documentation is often worse too, as the .mli is autogenerated and documented afterwards - and now changes made later in the sources need to be documented in the mli too, so anything that doesn't change the type often gets lost. The same happens in C and C++ with header files.

If you have been in the Ruby community for the past couple of years, it's possible that you're not a super fan of types or that this concept never passed through your mind, and that's totally cool. I myself love the dynamic and meta-programming nature of Ruby, and honestly, by the time of this article's writing, we aren't on the level of OCaml for type checking and inference, but still, there are a couple of nice things that types with sorbet bring to the table:

Looks like there have been proposals to eliminate use of 3 operand lea in OCaml code (not accepted sadly):

https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/8531

An amazing example is Ocaml lang logo / mascot. It might be useful to talk with them to know what was the process behind this work. The About page camel head on Perl dot org header is also a pretty good example of simplification, but it's not a logo, just a friendly illustration, as the O'Reilly camel is. Another notable logo for this animal is the well known tobacco industry company, but don't get me started on that (“good” logo, though, if we look at the effectiveness of their marketing).

Haskell and Agda are probably the most obvious examples. Ocaml too, but it is much older, so its type system is not as categorical. There is also Idris, which is not as well-known but is very cool.

That does sound problematic, but without the code it is hard to tell what is the issue. Typically, compiling a 6kLoc file like https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/typing/typecore.ml takes 0.8 s on my machine.