this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
189 points (92.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
32710 readers
298 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.