exhaustive VS ocaml

This is an analyzer that will catch this: https://github.com/nishanths/exhaustive

I believe it's in golangci-lint.

I agree linters in general are quite useful for Go though. The default suite from golangci-lint is quite good. I would also recommend enabling exhaustive if you're working with a codebase that uses "enums" (full disclosure, I contributed a bit to that project).

there’s a linter for exhaustive matching: https://github.com/nishanths/exhaustive

I tried to find that linter and found this: exhaustive

And in Go you'd use a linter, like this one.

this is AST go vet analyzer that performs just that: https://github.com/nishanths/exhaustive (too bad it can not do struct based enums..)

>> the main thing missing from Go is ADT's. After using these in Rust and Swift, a programming language doesn't really feel complete without them

What are the differences between an ADT (plus pattern matching i’d reckon?) in Rust/Swift vs the equiv in Go (tagged interfaces + switch statement)?

One has exhaustive matching at compile time, the other has a default clause (non exhaustive matching), although there’s an important nub here with respect to developer experience; it would be idiomatic in Go to use static analysis tooling (e.g. Rob Pike is on record saying that various checks - inc this one - don’t belong in the compiler and should live in go vet). I’ve been playing with Go in a side project and using golint-ci which invokes https://github.com/nishanths/exhaustive - net result, in both go and rust, i get a red line of text annotated at the switch in vscode if i miss a case.

Taking a step back, there isn’t a problem you can solve with one that you can’t solve with the other, or is there?

To take a step further back, why incomplete?

Use a linter.

For an exhaustive linter, were you referring to this? It looks pretty nice. If it's possible to check this with static analysis, is it something that could be in the compiler itself in the future?

https://github.com/nishanths/exhaustive

here, have fun. You’re gonna write some tests, make new types to satisfy interfaces for testing, and then wind up with branches for your test paths in your live code, but go for it, I guess. You know everything! I am but a simple blubbite, too dim, too dim to get it.

> 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.