book VS rust-playground

Some of your questions might be answered in this book (free online version): https://dev.realworldocaml.org/

I don't think they're wrong

the Jane Street side are quite prolific with blog posts etc

as a newcomer to OCaml one of the first, and nicer-looking, intro resources you'll likely encounter is the Real World OCaml book https://dev.realworldocaml.org/ which unfortunately does everything using Base instead of the stdlib

Personally that didn't sit right to me and I prefer to use the stdlib by default (which seems fine and not in need of a wholesale replacement)

This is an oldie but a goodie.

OCaml has, unlike Standard ML, grown quite a lot since this page was made.

In particular, the section "Standard libraries", I'd recommend looking at:

https://dev.realworldocaml.org/

A couple of places where the comparison is outdated:

- OCaml using Base [1] allows for result-type oriented programming

- OCaml using Base uses less language magic and more module system

While there was and is truth to the distinction that SML is for scientists and OCaml is for engineers, this dichotomy is getting dated: OCaml is under active development, which means that scientists who want better tooling will choose OCaml. For example, 1ML [2] by Andreas Rossberg was built in OCaml.

[1]: https://opensource.janestreet.com/base/

Real World OCaml (version 2 is finally out) is also pretty good.

Real World OCaml is also a good resource, geared more towards people who already have some programming experience and want a more industry/practical focused learning experience.

ocaml.org’s new website is packed with lots of great early intros.

most learners eventually gravitate towards Real World OCaml https://dev.realworldocaml.org/ for additional learning.

Unfortunately, the learning resources for different domains out there isn’t as highly curated or prolific as, say, rust. If you do web dev like me, it takes a bit more work to find the tools and put them together. But the language itself lends itself well to systems level programming.

Fortunately, the forum is a great help.

In general, better read the second edition which is updated to use current Core versions. A print version was published recently.

I recommend https://dev.realworldocaml.org/ and https://cs3110.github.io/textbook/cover.html

Elm is not dead. It just prefers a slow release schedule but is still actively worked on in the background.

That said, you might want to check out OCaml for general purpose programming. Super fast compiler, great performance, can target both native and JS.

It is easier to use than Haskell due to defaulting to eager evaluation (like most languages) strategy instead of laziness and being generally more pragmatic, offering more escape hatches into the imperative world if need be. Plus great upward trajectory with lot's of cool stuff like an effects system and multi-core support coming.

Real World Ocaml is a decent resource: https://dev.realworldocaml.org/

If you have an object that's !Unpin, then Miri will not apply uniqueness rules to anything containing it [0], including boxes and &mut references. (In the example code, replacing the PhantomPinned with a () will make Miri complain again.) This is considered a temporary (if long-lived) measure to allow async executors to manipulate pinned futures without invalidating all their references and whatnot. Thus, it might be seen as undetected UB, in lieu of a permanent solution.

[0] https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That would be true if you used `Vec::clear` too, it doesn't allocate a new vector. My point was that you still end up running Drop implementations with RepeatedField, just not all at once. See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That's a valid Unix path, but rust's quoting does nothing to stop it: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Self-referential structs work fine in Rust and always have.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

The compiler will correctly prevent you from moving the value.

The other way to have a struct that starts out as non-self-referential and then becomes self-referential can be achieved with `unsafe` and `Pin::new_unchecked`, which is how `async {}` is handled.

In rust as currently stands: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

On the other hand, both this wrapper and yours are counterproductive if the element size is dynamic (e.g. perhaps you're dealing with some nonsense like:)

    struct ITableColumn {

Overflow checks turn into two's compliments' wrapping, but that's only considered acceptable because bounds checks are not turned off.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds unnecessarily complicated and why I don't use Rust for any serious work.

This demonstrates the ABA problem in safe Rust: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Substitute the sleep with a combination of doing computation/work and the OS thread scheduler, and you can see how the bug surfaces.

You can also try Rust online using the Rust playground: https://play.rust-lang.org/

(Click ... beside build to get assembly) https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

Unfortunately the go playground doesn't seem to support emitting assembly?