00:11 <companion_cube> @yawaramin you don't use a web stack that already has query parameter parsing?

00:11 <companion_cube> (relatedly, I just implemented a basic multipart form parser and that was big yikes energy )

00:12 <discocaml> <yawaramin> the Go ones are not composable and flexible...my one is more verbose but more powerful and allows reuse

02:55 <Mister_Magister> Hello again beautiful people, I am not a novice software engineer and I've been looking for some new programming language that would fit my needs, more modern than c++ and also objective becaues i love oop. Yesterday i've been looking through ocaml introduction and it seems to have everything i need in terms of oop. While i'm not quite yet convinced about the lack of types and weird matching i'm quite sure that linter probably

02:55 <Mister_Magister> solves all issues. But on that note i would like to ask you people one more questions before i decide to commit to learning ocaml. Could you provide me with some example project thats like 20-50 classes? I've seen how ocaml looks on micro scale but i gotta see it on macro scale

02:56 <discocaml> <Kali> "lack of types"? it is types, they're just inferred

02:56 <discocaml> <Kali> typed*

02:57 <Mister_Magister> i know that

02:57 <discocaml> <Kali> you can manually annotate types if you want

02:57 <Mister_Magister> like, people got very mad at auto in c++ :D

03:01 <discocaml> <Kali> also ocaml programs almost never structure code with classes, but rather with modules

03:01 <discocaml> <Kali> in fact most ocaml programs do not even use oop at all

03:01 <Mister_Magister> well modules and classes are not the same thing

03:02 <Mister_Magister> but hence i asked for some example oop project so that i can see how it looks on macro scale :P

03:03 <discocaml> <Kali> maybe check out lablgtk

03:04 <discocaml> <Kali> it's the only library i know that uses objects very extensively because it's bindings to an oop gui library

03:05 <Mister_Magister> yeah feels like oop is less and less popular these days

03:07 <discocaml> <Kali> yeah, but in ocaml's specific case, ocaml's module and type system are sufficiently complex to replace most of the things oop was supposed to be good at (encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism) and objects also are just less performant due to the developers not putting in as much effort into that area of the language so there is a bit of a natural deterrant regardless

03:08 <Mister_Magister> hmmm so it could be that, after all, ocaml is not language for me sadly

03:08 <Mister_Magister> or i could stop crying and stop forcing oop

03:09 <discocaml> <Kali> encapsulation via abstract/private types, inheritance via `include`, and polymorphism at a type level with polymorphic types and polymorphic variants or at a module level with module subtyping

03:10 <discocaml> <Kali> i'd still recommend checking ocaml out because it will almost certainly make you learn some new ways of thinking about things

03:10 <discocaml> <Kali> it's definitely weird if you're coming from mainstream languages

03:10 <discocaml> <Kali> but it will make you a better programmer

03:10 <Mister_Magister> yeah i mean, the issue i have with oop is that its deeply rooted in my brain so i can only think oop

03:10 <Mister_Magister> yeah for sure

03:11 <Mister_Magister> i just get lost without oop, but again, i could just stop crying and do something about it xd

03:11 <discocaml> <yawaramin> thinking in OOP is fine, it's just a matter of what exactly you are looking for in a new language, what's more important

03:12 <Mister_Magister> hmmm

06:30 <dh`> functional programming and object-oriented programming are all just programming

07:44 <discocaml> <bluddy5> OCaml is not a good target if you're looking specifically for OOP. If you want to find out about functional languages, it's a perfect fit.

07:44 <discocaml> <bluddy5> There is some OOP support but it's discouraged

08:33 <discocaml> <chrisarmstrong> I'm actually using the O in OCaml right now :ocaml:

09:19 <Mister_Magister> >ocaml >has objective in name >is mainly functional

09:19 <Mister_Magister> we're reaching bamboozlement levels never reached before

09:20 <olle> mainly? depends on who use it? the object system is an extension on top of caml, iirc.

09:20 <olle> there's a module language in there too

09:21 <olle> mocaml? mooocaml.

09:21 <olle> hm

09:21 <olle> Mister_Magister: sure

10:10 <reynir> I'm not sure I would go so far as to say objects are discouraged in OCaml. Just not widely used.

10:24 <discocaml> <chrisarmstrong> It’s object oriented enough. Reminds me of prototype based languages like JS

11:53 <discocaml> <ape_logic> does anyone know of an existing implementation of reflinks/ioctl_ficlonerange syscall in ocaml?

20:06 <discocaml> <barconstruction> Discouraged by who?

20:26 <dh`> the conventional wisdom, at a minimum

20:36 <discocaml> <doraent> I've never done anything serious in OOP, and wonder : do you know an example of something we would do easily in OOP and not with the ocaml module system ?

20:45 <discocaml> <smondet> OCaml still has one of the best OOP subsystems out there (structural subtyping, well controlled inheritance, etc.).

20:45 <discocaml> <smondet> Perfect "gateway drug": come for the slick OOP, then slowly realize it's not what you wanted for 95% of the problems...

20:49 <discocaml> <ape_logic> I've not yet tried oop in ocaml, most things that fit the "stuff data into a structure and run methods against it" pattern I just define a function that takes `t` as a parameter

20:49 <discocaml> <ape_logic> which I guess is kind of C like

20:50 <discocaml> <ape_logic> no real use for inheritance yet

20:55 <dh`> what do you mean by "OOP"? there's all kinds of interpretations

21:41 <discocaml> <ape_logic> I guess I would say gof type patterns but honestly a huge chunk of that can just be done with OCaml's more natural polymorphism