zlacker

>>noelwe+(OP)
From the article:

> I am also deeply sick and tired of maintaining large Python scripts recently, and crave the modularity and type safety of OCaml.

I can totally relate. Switching from Python to a purely functional language can feel like a rebirth.

>>smartm+tq
OCaml isn't pure.

>>IshKeb+BI
I recently realized that "pure functional" has two meanings, one is no side-effects (functional programmers, especially of languages like Haskell use it this way) and the other is that it doesn't have imperative fragments (the jump ISWIM to SASL dropped the non-functional parts inherited from ALGOL 60). A question seems to be whether you want to view sequencing as syntax sugar for lambda expressions or not?

>>pkal+JT
I'm working with Python and I'm sympathetic to the problem so I'd be curious if you have examples of what Python issues are fixed with OCaml.

>>Neutra+961
A few ways in which Python is not really functional:

The scoping rules of Python are not lexical

Lambdas in Python are not multiline

Recursion is not a practical way to write code due to stack overflows

Monkey patching