ocaml VS koka

Elm, ReScript, F#, Ocaml, Scala… it’s just normal to name your types, then use them places. In fact, you’ll often create the types _before_ the code, even if you’re not really practicing DDD (Domain Driven Design). Yes, you’ll do many after the fact when doing functions, or you start testing things and decide to change your design, and make new types. Either way, it’s just “the norm”. You then do the other norms like “name your function” and “name your variables”. I’m a bit confused why it’s only 2 out of 3 (variables and functions, not types) in this TypeScript Angular project. I’ll have to look at other internal Angular projects and see if it’s common there as well.

It does, it links to this: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/4d6ecfb5cf4a5da814784dee...

open Monitoring let test_get_websites_from_file () = let websites = Config.get_websites_from_file "test_websites.yaml" in assert (List.length websites = 2); let first = List.hd websites in assert (first.url = "https://ocaml.org"); assert (first.interval = 20) let () = Unix.chdir "../../../test/"; test_get_websites_from_file ();

Ocaml is still a wonderful language if you want to look into it, and Reason is still going strong as an alternate syntax for OCaml. With either OCaml or Reason you can compile to native code, or use the continuation of BuckleScript now called Melange.

> 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

This post by the Koka-author is an update about what's currently being worked on: https://github.com/koka-lang/koka/discussions/339

Some programming language like JS, use path-based imports, that's not good for making a stabel API.

See https://api-extractor.com/pages/setup/configure_rollup/#:~:text=(The%20API%20Extractor,with%20that%20effort.)

And https://github.com/koka-lang/koka/issues/31#issuecomment-1482200826

It also offers a great Inversion of Control mechanism where everything is customisable, and, unlike Capability Objects, AESs also offer compatibility with type inference (you can pass functions doing IO to map, and it Just Works(TM)) and first-class control over stack frames (because really a continuation function is just some stack frames, which you can manually move to the heap if you want a closure; which means async is an effect!). It also is composable in ways Monads are not.

Koka and other languages implementing Algebraic Effect Systems make everything a user-defined case of coroutines: async is just another effect/Monadic type. Zig does something similar by having first class stack frames, making all function calls possibly asynchronous.

Super interesting, there is a proposal to add this to JavaScript and several languages that use this, unison, koka & eff. I had no idea this was even a thing!

Koka, already cited in this thread, early 2010s. Koka's first claim to fame was a usable effect system (at the type were, basically, effect systems were not usable in practice; in fact few languages have managed to do as well as Koka since). Now its author is working on cool implementation strategies for functional languages as well.

I'm a software engineer with 3 years of professional experience. I worked for 2 years at Microsoft on Azure Compute and now work at Google, working on improving Google search. I am the sole maintainer of the popular open-source library microlens with 80k downloads. I've also contributed to the Koka programming language developed at Microsoft Research.

By implementing all of those optimizations in the Koka programming language, they achieved GC overhead much less and execution time faster than the other languages including OCaml, Haskell, and even C++ in several algorithms and data structures that frequently keep common sub-structures of them, such as red-black trees. For more information, see the latest version of the paper.