gpopides@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoBrought to you by the ocaml ganglemmy.worldimagemessage-square13fedilinkarrow-up1200arrow-down117
arrow-up1183arrow-down1imageBrought to you by the ocaml ganglemmy.worldgpopides@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square13fedilink
minus-squarevoxel@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up36·1 year agorudt has implicit typing by default for variables tho…?
minus-squareFishFace@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·1 year agoYeah but it doesn't cross function boundaries so it's more limited.
minus-squareKnusper@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up23·1 year agoIn other words, in OCaml, you don't have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those. It's useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I'm glad that Rust is more explicit here.
minus-squarevoxel@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·edit-21 year agoyeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)
minus-squarefl42v@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up4·edit-21 year agoIt's not like it's more limited, it's just so that it can yell at you when you return not what you said you're going to, IMO
minus-squareFishFace@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoOCaml allows you to specify return types, but doesn't force you to.
rudt has implicit typing by default for variables tho…?
Yeah but it doesn't cross function boundaries so it's more limited.
In other words, in OCaml, you don't have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those.
It's useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I'm glad that Rust is more explicit here.
yeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache
also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)
It's not like it's more limited, it's just so that it can yell at you when you return not what you said you're going to, IMO
OCaml allows you to specify return types, but doesn't force you to.