Hacker News Reader

Comment by yawaramin | Hacker News Reader

OCaml is not just FP. It's FP + strong static typing + modular programming + exhaustive pattern matching + fast compiles + great set of built-in compiler lints (eg unused code warnings, mutation warnings). All of these things together help write very reliable code.

View on HN

For those who do not know, OCaml is multi-paradigm. You can do OOP and imperative in OCaml as well, not just FP. In a typical codebase, you may find a combination of all styles.

There is no evidence that any of those things lead to more correctness.

It’s all feels

There's plenty of evidence. Here's the OCaml compiler catching a redundant rule in the Unicode line-breaking algorithm: https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2020-m03/0000....

People who like rejecting this kind of stuff as 'feels' are ironically also being guided by their 'feels'.

Do you have any thoughts on my other post in this comment section?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44699548

One example of a compiler catching some issue isn't evidence. It's an anecdote.

There's no scientific experiment you could run that proves, or disproves, that type systems lead to more correctness. It's a thing you cannot possibly know.

We already have scientific experiments that prove it. Here is a significant result: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7985711

This is why I say that people who keep denying this are vibing based on their feels. Instead of asking for the evidence they just keep saying there can't possibly be any evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com