Talk:Objective Caml

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bottles of beer

Um, isn't x bottles of beers wrong? Shouldn't it be x bottles of beer?

-- thanks gmarceau

The new version of bottle-of-beer uses the "and" keyword, as well as extra indentation. I fell this make the code unnecessarily intimidating to a passer by, who, we assume, doesn't already know Ocaml. In languages other than Ocaml "and" is usualy a boolean operator, and indentation is usually used to indicate flow of control, rather than to indicate lexical scope. Avoiding these two constructs make the meaning of the rest of the code easier to guess (don't you think?). -- gmarceau 03:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like my bottles of beer example better, it is shorter and much more obvious, and also demonstrates tail recursion. Is there any consensus on which is clearer? I we keep the new one we should probably explain it better, especially the ^ operator. --Nick Nolan 04:59, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Again, I am thinking of this in term of a passer-by who doesn't know Ocaml, and who is more likely to be familliar with one of C/Java/Perl/Python. The new version might be longer, but it showcases some idioms done in Ocaml, such as string slicing, pattern matching and procedure invocation. Hopefully, it's all guessable. I fell that (^) is guessable simply because 3 of the 4 popular languages each have a different symbol for string concats.

By using a tail recursion in place where a simple for-loop would do, the cannonical passer-by could reasonably guess that Ocaml is an twisted academic language which shy away from mundane "normal" loops. The for-loop is simply make Ocaml look less intimidating.

On the other hand, I agree that tail recursion deserves a demonstration, with a link to its wikipedia article. Can we think of a third example? -- gmarceau 15:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless we mention that Haskell was derived from ML, the see-also link to Haskell doesn't appear relevent to the reader. How about "Haskell is a non-strict member of the ML-familly"?

The Inria people went to great length to support Posix functions and the associated coding style. I think the ocaml reimplementation of printf is the best example of that effort, particularly because many high-level programming languages miss it. The technical discussion of the distinction between a system call, a C library call or an Ocaml reimplementation should not detract from the main point, which is that Ocaml support a standart-Posix coding style. Maybe some rewording is warranted? --gmarceau 14:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding POSIX, I've just done some rewording in which one of the changes was from "POSIX functions" to "familiar functions". I think this captures the essential fact (OCaml provides features which will be familiar to C programmers as well as all the neat functional stuff), without making the incorrect claim that OCaml's Printf.printf is the same as the POSIX function of the same name.

In that case, why does the introduction say "Like all descendants of ML, OCaml is ... strictly evaluated ... ."? 202.180.83.6 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is belonging to the ML family same as being a descendant of ML, I don't know. The page on Haskell programming language says: "The direct predecessor of Haskell was Miranda from 1985." And the page on Miranda programming language says: "Miranda is a non-strict purely functional programming language developed by Professor David Turner as a successor to his earlier programming languages SASL and KRC, using some concepts from ML and Hope." Perhaps Miranda and Haskell belong to the ML family in law. At least the syntax and the type system are similar. --TuukkaH 05:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Ocaml is not used as an introductory language in Pisa University. Could you please cite your source for this information?

I am not the author of the phrase but I can say that in Pisa Ocaml has been used in the very first (theoretical) course on programming for a couple of years some time ago - then they switched to java. Ocaml is still used as a meta-language for an advanced - but obligatory for one of the two second-level degrees - course on programming languages held by prof. Levi: http://www.di.unipi.it/~levi/corsoLP/pagina.html

[edit] Website

I don't see why we label ocaml.org as the "unofficial" website, and caml.inria.fr as the "official" website -- the former site says nothing about its unofficial status. Also, caml.inria.fr describes the CAML language family -- I think www.ocaml.org, which is specifically about Ocaml, should be listed first. Neilc 07:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason ocaml.org is labelled "unofficial" is that it is unofficial. This is a simple and straightforward fact. It is also very outdated (the most recent news item is the release of 3.07!). Do you really think we should be giving prominence to a site that is not being actively maintained, over one which contains the up-to-date information straight from the horse's mouth?

(FWIW, as of March 2005 this no longer the case; ocaml.org now redirects to the official site.)

[edit] "Ocaml" to "O'Caml programming language" move

Why was this page moved? I can think of nothing else called "Ocaml" which might potentially warrant disambiguation, and policy dictates that pages reside where they'd most commonly be looked for; cf. Fortran. Moreover, the language is Objective Caml, OCaml, or Ocaml; it is pronounced "O'Caml," but never spelled as such in text (barring one appearance at the head of this article, which should really be clarified). I am moving it back for the time being; feel free to make your case here. Austin Hair 01:35, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless somebody points out to a good reason for the move, the page should be repatriated. David.Monniaux 08:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that "it is never spelled as [O'Caml]". Look at http://www.ocaml.org/, for example: the title of the page is "Welcome to the O'Caml language". Admittedly the <title> is "The OCaml Language", but it seems either spelling is acceptable. However, the "Ocaml" form seems significantly less common -- IMHO it should not be the title of the article. Neilc 08:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Granted, that blanket statement was (as most are) inexcusably inaccurate; nonetheless, "O'Caml" is probably the least common form, and certainly not the preferred one. I do agree that OCaml is where this article should rightfully lie, but as that page has a four-edit history, I chose to simply repatriate (to borrow David's term) the article and wait for consensus to be reached before asking for admin intervention. Austin Hair 12:16, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

What ocaml.org says is irrelevant, because that is not the official site. The form used on the official site is OCaml. A better choice for this article, IMO, would be the full name, "Objective Caml".

[edit] Requested moves

How about the following:

Move Ocaml to Objective Caml programming language.
Move Talk:O'Caml programming language to Talk:Objective Caml programming language.
Fix redirects etc.

This would avoid debate over the spelling of "OCaml" vs. "Ocaml" vs. "O'Caml". Whether "...programming language" should be part of the title is a matter of discussion; we should go with whatever is the standard for programming language articles. --MarkSweep 02:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually there's no need for a debate over the spelling: it's OCaml, as mentionned in the FAQ on the language's site: We write Caml and OCaml.

!/usr/bin/env ocaml

is more generic than #!/usr/bin/ocamlrun ocaml

[edit] On Commercials in this article

Looking at the article in its present state, there are 16 external (non-wikipedia) OCaml-related links in it. Seven of them point to http:// www.ffconsultancy.com, and all of them seem to have been made by a user from the IP 80.229.56.224, which resolves to jdh30.plus.com.

Doing a bit of research, this is the machine of the owner of ffconsultancy.com, Dr. Jon Harrop. This brings up the question whether we actually see here a violation of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not rules, as this article might be abused for self-promotion and advertising issues. Doubly so, as there is quite some consensus of Jon Harrop showing quite undue behaviour on the usenet as well as some mailing lists, alienating large parts of the functional community.

I therefore strongly suggest deleting all references to ffconsultancy.com from the article.

Motion seconded, carried, and implemented. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I just re-added many of the links before I read this. I am happy to have the direct links to commercial products removed (the OCaml book and Presenta) if this is against Wikipedia policy (note that Wikipedia references many other books though - perhaps we should add a references section?). However, I see no sense in removing links to free software written in OCaml that happen to be available from the same site, particularly the maze generator, ray tracers and example programs from scientific computing. I have also added some links to other OCaml-related pages. If I can provide any useful information, please contact me (the objection was made by Thomas Fischbacher). - Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>.

I just updated the page a little more, replacing the link to an OCaml book with a link to INRIA's page of OCaml books (that includes my own). I have also added links to other Wikipedia pages about companies that use OCaml (not including Flying Frog Consultancy ;-). MarkSweep, can you explain the logic behind keeping many relatively-unknown OCaml programs like DrGeoCaml but removing what is possibly the most famous OCaml program, FFTW? It seems like a great shame to omit a link to this fantastic piece of software! - Jon Harrop

I've reintroduced the reference to FFTW. Many people don't realise this program is written in OCaml because it generates C and Fortran, this is probably why it was deleted first time. To anyone who wants to confirm this the FFTW website mentions it in the FAQ section. - Jrthorpe

[edit] Reorganization

Jon Harrop recently reorganized most of the features and "philosophy" text in this article into a list form. I don't think this is a good way to present the article; an encyclopedia is supposed to explain things, but a bullet-list of features just presents a collection of facts. A lot of work is needed on this article, but I think our model should be the excellent Python article.

I remerged the improvements to links and other small things that were included, but let's think through the main body of the article a little more. --Mike Lin 08:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a lot of work but I think undoing my alterations is another step in the wrong direction. The old text that is at best misleading and at worst factually incorrect. I'll go through some of it:

"ML-derived languages are most well known for their strict type systems" - conventional nomenclature is static type systems, not "strict", and it should link to the Wikipedia page on static typing (as mine did). If you need more information on conventional nomenclature then I suggest my book on OCaml (proof read by Xavier Leroy, the lead developer of OCaml).

"Like Python and Perl" - I think OCaml should be discussed in its own right with links to relevant Wikipedia articles on its features (i.e. it should not include yet another subjective discussion of topics that already have dedicated pages with more detail). Many languages (e.g. SML, Lisp, BASIC) provide a top-level, why liken OCaml to Python and Perl?

"Many high-level programming languages, even when compiled to native code, achieve slower performance than might be possible with C/C++ because of runtime type and safety checks" - this discussion of the performance hindrance of dynamic typing does not belong on the OCaml page.

"OCaml's strict type system renders runtime type mismatches impossible" - Strong typing checks for type mismatches. Static typing checks for them at compile time. It may be worth noting that not all OCaml programs are type safe.

"OCaml's strict type system eliminates a large class of programmer errors that may cause problems at runtime" - Static typing!

"the OCaml compiler can infer types, greatly reducing the need for manual type annotation" - you can always have your types inferred in OCaml, so I had replaced "greatly reducing" with "eliminating".

"as they do in Java" - again, I dislike random references like this. Type inference has already been discussed more thoroughly elsewhere, so we should reference that page and not cut and paste it or write a worse version here.

"A preprocessor and macro language named Camlp4 which permits syntactical extensions" - camlp4 can also be used incrementally in a top-level. I have a nice camlp4 example that perhaps I should post in the Code Examples section.

"Applications..." - if we are not allowed to cite what is possibly the most famous piece of software written in OCaml (FFTW), I see no point in having the "Applications" and "Programs written in OCaml" sections. Perhaps these should be removed and replaced with a practical discussion on applications which stand to benefit the most from the use of OCaml. However, that is likely to be a biased and subjective view which (AFAIK) is against Wikipedia policy.

"Natural science..." - now that my links have been removed (not by Mike Lin, AFAIK), this subsection conveys no useful information. It should either be removed or the links replaced with more appropriate ones.

Finally, I had added a discussed of some of the most important points in the context of OCaml (e.g. safety, brevity, modules, pattern matching, separate compilation) but these have all been removed by Mike. Although I think a list is easier to digest that paragraphs of text, I wouldn't have minded so much if my list had been replaced with paragraphs of text. However, I see no merit in Mike having removed my corrections and additions. - Jon Harrop

Valid points mostly. I just think your thoughts should be reorganized in an expository paragraph form; no one wants to or will read bullet points of unrelated technical facts. Consider my revert an invitation to add your changes back in a better way. --Mike Lin 18:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, bullet points are much easier to read than paragraphs of texts. I see it as a chance when it is possible to do so. It is always possible to expand them as dedicated sections with a title, without having to rewrite the whole paragraph or the whole article. That's not because most scientific articles are written in a way which makes them more difficult to read in order to make them look deeper that it's a good thing to do. Even better than bullet points are diagrams, with colors, but that's even more work. --Martin.jambon 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to concur with Jon and Martin here. Sometimes a list is the best way to describe things. I find Jon's bullet-points much easier to follow than a dense paragraph of text, and splitting the feature list into bullet points makes it much, much easier to explain individual features. — Haeleth Talk 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jon's list is very easy to read and understand as long as you already know everything that's on it, as I think each of us do. But approach this from someone without much PL background just trying to obtain general knowledge about OCaml: you are presented with a bullet list of technical terms with terse, one-sentence quasi-explanations.

Let me stress that by no means is the current paragraph-form content of this article satisfactory. But we do need prose explanations that don't assume mastery of PL jargon (see WP:manual of style and WP:guide to layout). Again I refer to the excellent articles on Python and Java as models. --Mike Lin 20:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in, guys. So we all agree that a bullet point list is better for us language-heads. I agree with Mike that prose is the best way to give a fuller explanation, especially for people not so familiar with different languages. So I suggest that we replace the current "Philosophy" with a bullet point list giving links to the full, generic explanations of each feature/property of the language and we can then elaborate in an OCaml-specific way on particular features (e.g. ways to leverage OCaml's static type checker) in prose. The Wikipedia guidelines do say that articles should be unbiased, so I think it would be better for us to be completely objective and, particularly, avoid subjective discussion of the philosophy behind OCaml, at least to begin with. - Jon Harrop

I think that sounds like a reasonable compromise; let's see how it looks. As for the "Philosophy" section, I think something of the sort belongs; for example, I liked Gerd Stolpmann's ideas about the basic motivations underlying the language, which I'm reproducing here for reference (obviously not saying we should use this literal text).

In the first place, O'Caml is a research language where scientists enhance ML in a sound way, and implement it such that it is practically usable. The article mentions the "strict type system" several times, but that remains mysterious and somehow ensures that there are no runtime errors. Actually, there is a lot of theoretical work behind that. The type system is actually a calculus that has some properties (e.g. there is always a principal type if you don't use subtyping - which explains something, in particular that the compiler can always deduce a type if possible at all). At least, I would expect that such an article lists the most important properties of type checking and evaluation (the article does not even mention that O'Caml is an eager language). If O'Caml has a revolutionary aspect, this can only be that the developers do not allow that practical benefits destroy theoretical soundness, and that O'Caml is nevertheless extremely well-suited for practical problems at the same time. If that was the motto of the article this would have my consent. Gerd

--Mike Lin 20:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links to books

I just added links to four different books on OCaml. In order to prevent "link spam" I removed the one remaining link to freely-available code and information about OCaml (the ray tracer) from our company site. - Jon Harrop

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's contributed since my request, especially Mike Lin for his recent overhaul. The page is vastly better now! One small point, the page says "Code generated by OCaml's native code compiler can, in fact, approach the performance of C/C++ on algorithmic tasks". Actually, for many non-trivial programs, OCaml is often much faster than C++, e.g. it can be $10^4 \times$ faster for set union. - Jon Harrop

tr1::auto_ptr solves any reasonable worry over copying, and you really should check with more than one implementation of std::set_union, you know. There are probably even (non-standard) functions for calcuating set unions that are significantly faster than OCaml. Referential transparancy is nice, but not a pancea. I have no argument about the prettyness of the code though :) 202.180.83.6 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Immutable sets could be implemented in C++, of course. They would probably be much more complicated to implement but should be at least as fast as OCaml's built-in Set module (this would be an interesting exercise). However, it is interesting to compare the provided functionality, namely OCaml's Set module and the STL. Finally, auto_ptr is a long way from garbage collection. - Jon Harrop

[edit] Checked exceptions

The article on exception handling on one hand describes how there are external checkers to see that all exceptions are handled in OCaml, and on the other hand says that OCaml has checked exceptions. I don't know OCaml, but my guess is that the language as it is doesn't have checked exceptions. You could clarify the situation in both articles. Thanks. --TuukkaH 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libraries

I just made a minor edit to the "wide variety of libraries" line. It sounded a little odd to me, considering the breadth of other stdlibs available with, say, Java. Was this warranted? Scotto 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I think we should either say "wide variety" or just "variety", there is no point in saying "moderate variety". In this specific context, I believe OCaml provides strictly more functionality than Java (and C, C++ etc.) in terms of arbitrary precision arithmetic (i.e. rationals). OCaml's stdlib also provides a lot of other functionality not found in the standard libraries of other languages (e.g. immutable sets, lazy evaluation, streams, lexing, parsing, unix calls). Ultimately, we should probably enumerate the features provided by OCaml's stdlib and give links to other external libraries rather than argue about whether or not to use the word "moderate". -- Jon Harrop

With perl4caml, OCaml's libraries are a strict superset of Perl's libs, which I'd say makes them pretty extensive. Richard W.M. Jones 09:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case

I just made a minor edit to the Triangle (graphics) example, "simple.ml". At least on Unix systems it is important to get the case right: +lablGL instead of +lablgl. Cragwolf 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm using Debian, which installs both lablgl and lablGL. Presumably other distros don't? Jon Harrop

I installed from source, and that process installs lablGL as default, although I suppose you could configure it to install lablgl. Cragwolf 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Objective Caml

New proposal: move to Objective Caml. This is the full name, according to [1].

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support Qwertyus 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Mike Lin 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC) --Vegaswikian 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On example code and OOP

The article is just plain great for introducing anyone to this wonderful language. I myself used it as a launch point three months ago and I just completed an 3000-line compiler as a term essay using ocaml. A big thanks to all contributors!

Now, what I am writing here about is the example code snippets in the text. To my understanding, the major difference between OCaml and the previous camels is that big 'O' at the beginning of the name. However, code snippets in the article do not show any of ocaml's object oriented features. After writing my compiler and using absolutely none of the OOP features of OCaml, I do wonder how they are so important to make Caml into OCaml. If I knew how the OO paradigm is used in ocaml I'd go write an example myself, but I don't, so I ask of someone more knowledgeable than me to do so. Again, thanks guys for a great article! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Most of the examples came from my book, although I see that Qwertyus has deleted half of them (was that deliberate?). Perhaps we should add an interpreter as an example? PS: I also do not know when and where OOP is useful in OCaml. -- Jon Harrop

I moved all non-Objective Caml-specific examples to Categorical Abstract Machine Language. Qwertyus 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a bad idea. Caml is a dead language. Those examples were written and tested in OCaml. Objects are not the only difference between Caml and OCaml. -- Jon Harrop

It appears to me that there is no object-oriented code at the moment. (The OpenGL examples don't show the paradigm.) Could someone add an example? 129.27.202.101 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

The languages used in Classes Préparatoires in France are many, and depend on the type of Classes Préparatoires considered. However, Objective Caml is not used in any significant way: speciality Computer Science courses are taught in Caml Light (official requirement, as far as I know), non-speciality Computer Science courses in scientific Classes Préparatoires are given in a mix of Maple and Java (no official requirements there), while Computer Science in commercial Classes Préparatoires is done in Pascal. --ToohrVyk 13:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors when trying the Examples

[edit] Hello world

In the example it state "compile to byte code" Should that really state byte code and not machine code?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.8.234 (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Byte code" is correct. ocamlc is the byte code compiler; ocamlopt is the native code compiler. It makes no difference which you use for this example. Clconway 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factorial

I don't know enough OCaml to be 100% sure, but shouldn't the last line in the Birthday Paradx Example end with two semi-colons?

birthday_paradox 1.0 1 ;;

Also, the factorial example gives an error when I try it:

# let rec fact n = if n =/ Int 0 then Int 1 else n */ fact(n -/ Int 1);; Unbound value =/

BioGeek 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The birthday paradox snippet is a script designed to be run from file. My factorial example requires you to load the Num module, the details of which are given in the section I wrote. -- User:jdh30

[edit] OpenGL triangle

The rotation matrix should be reset before drawing each frame, otherwise errors accumulate. See http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2007/04/c8c30ba5b7e7f446cbb789cd50c052eb.en.html. I fixed it. --Martin 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This example still suffers from a worse problem: the animation is a function of the CPU time elapsed rather than the real time, so the speed of the animation is dictated by the load on the computer. Given the current climate of people deleting my contributions from Wikipedia, I'm just going to refer anyone wanting good code to the original source, the visualization chapter from [http:// www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/visualisation/ OCaml for Scientists] which is (C) Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. 2005. Jon Harrop 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam

I've been trying to add my OCaml book to the "books" section of this page but Wikipedia are threatening to blacklist me and ban me from editing. If anyone knows how to fix this then I'd appreciate it... -- User:jdh30

This is fixed easy enough: don't advertise yourself.

Regarding your cite: First, please demonstrate why this particular facts need citation, and how your own (self-published?) book as a source meets WP:A. Femto 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The same reason that my PhD thesis warrants citation for work relating to my research, these are the only sources for this information. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other resources detailing optimization in OCaml to the extent that my book does. Jon Harrop 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that what you write in your thesis or your books provides no encyclopedic verifiability beyond what you can write here as a common editor, the same person. Leave it to independent editors to determine whether your work warrants citation, per Wikipedia's neutrality policy, it's not yours to decide. Besides, if there are no other resources, your work might be original research on which Wikipedia's content should not rely at all. Who publishes your work, who reviewed, who confirms that you're a well-known, professional researcher in your field? Until this is established, you should refrain from attributing content to yourself, especially since you earlier added links that may be considered blatant advertising. Femto 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am not contesting the fact that I added too many links from Wikipedia to our site (I won't do it again). I am contesting the fact that I was reverting Requestion's vandalism (that was directed specifically at my work and not at links to books in general). I doubt a revert warrants the editorial process.

As for my personal credibility, all the information you want is available on our company site. Our company publishes my books. OCaml for Scientists was proof read by Xavier Leroy (the lead developer of OCaml) and testimonials from many other readers are on the book's web page. The internal examiner for my PhD was Professor Alan Windle, who described my work as "scholarly". The whole thesis is freely available on-line at the URL that Requestion deleted. Jon Harrop 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books

I noticed that the link to the "Books about OCaml" page on the official OCaml site no longer works (it now just leads to the home page). That's unfortunate, as linking only to that page seemed to be a reasonable solution to me. In the absence of that I agree with parts of both sides of this argument, in that we need to link to all of the books or none of them. But is there such an index to OCaml books page on ocaml-tutorial.org? Say, that's a wiki...hint, hint. --Mike Lin 13:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm much happier to see equal treatment of external links. I've deleted the broken link BTW. I think this article already has too many miscellaneous links at the bottom so I'm not going to add another one to a books page. Readers can Google for them. Jon Harrop 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this be a replacement link? http://caml.inria.fr/about/books.en.html Since it's not WP's purpose to be such a directory, an external link to the official page would be clearly preferable to a listing in the article. Femto 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That book list is out of date: it lacks Practical OCaml and OCaml for Scientists. Probably better to not even refer to a list of books. People can find them easily enough using Google or the OCaml-specific Wiki that Mike cited. What if I put an up-to-date book list on ffconsultancy.com? ;-) Jon Harrop 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Functors

Why does Functors link to function object in the article? As stated in the parens a functor in ocaml is a parametric module and not some kind of function object like a closure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.147.97 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eagerness

AFAICS The article does not say that OCaml is eager or lazy at all. AaronNGray (talk)

OCaml is strict/eager/call-by-value, which makes it completely unremarkable, as this is by far the most common choice in mainstream programming languages. The standard support for laziness through lazy/force may be notable. Clconway (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)