My (very) fast zero-allocation webserver using OxCaml
ttoinou
Does it look like functional programming anymore ?
le-mark
I think there are more succinct snippets in here and some this more verbose exposition is for pedagogical purposes. I am not a fan of ocaml because tacking on the object syntax made SML more verbose (ugly imo). Looks like 0xcaml continued trend.
adrien
I had only had a quick look for now. The "Claude skills" look interesting but I don't care about Claude, especially on advanced topics such as the ones in OxCaml. They look interesting for humans to read but it's a bit sad that they're written for ingeestion by an AI system more than understanding by humans. I seems like only a tiny bit of additional prose, explanations and links between sections would make it a great resource for learning and practicing.
avsm
I'm not keen on doing tutorials intended for humans from AI generated code; it's got a different emphasis. The handwritten OxCaml tutorial is an example of something for human consumption, and then Jon Ludlam compiled the oxcaml compiler to Javascript so you can interactively learn: https://jon.ludl.am/experiments/oxcaml-tutorial/
osa1
Funny, I actually found the LLM documentation of modes more readable than the one for humans (though the LLM docs seem to be missing some of the modes like "visibility" and "future").
It probably has to do with being familiar with the concepts involved (which makes the docs for humans too verbose for me), but still..
ttoinou
Does it look like functional programming anymore ?
le-mark
I think there are more succinct snippets in here and some this more verbose exposition is for pedagogical purposes. I am not a fan of ocaml because tacking on the object syntax made SML more verbose (ugly imo). Looks like 0xcaml continued trend.
adrien
I had only had a quick look for now. The "Claude skills" look interesting but I don't care about Claude, especially on advanced topics such as the ones in OxCaml. They look interesting for humans to read but it's a bit sad that they're written for ingeestion by an AI system more than understanding by humans. I seems like only a tiny bit of additional prose, explanations and links between sections would make it a great resource for learning and practicing.
avsm
I'm not keen on doing tutorials intended for humans from AI generated code; it's got a different emphasis. The handwritten OxCaml tutorial is an example of something for human consumption, and then Jon Ludlam compiled the oxcaml compiler to Javascript so you can interactively learn: https://jon.ludl.am/experiments/oxcaml-tutorial/
osa1
Funny, I actually found the LLM documentation of modes more readable than the one for humans (though the LLM docs seem to be missing some of the modes like "visibility" and "future").
It probably has to do with being familiar with the concepts involved (which makes the docs for humans too verbose for me), but still..
Does it look like functional programming anymore ?
I think there are more succinct snippets in here and some this more verbose exposition is for pedagogical purposes. I am not a fan of ocaml because tacking on the object syntax made SML more verbose (ugly imo). Looks like 0xcaml continued trend.
I had only had a quick look for now. The "Claude skills" look interesting but I don't care about Claude, especially on advanced topics such as the ones in OxCaml. They look interesting for humans to read but it's a bit sad that they're written for ingeestion by an AI system more than understanding by humans. I seems like only a tiny bit of additional prose, explanations and links between sections would make it a great resource for learning and practicing.
I'm not keen on doing tutorials intended for humans from AI generated code; it's got a different emphasis. The handwritten OxCaml tutorial is an example of something for human consumption, and then Jon Ludlam compiled the oxcaml compiler to Javascript so you can interactively learn: https://jon.ludl.am/experiments/oxcaml-tutorial/
Funny, I actually found the LLM documentation of modes more readable than the one for humans (though the LLM docs seem to be missing some of the modes like "visibility" and "future").
It probably has to do with being familiar with the concepts involved (which makes the docs for humans too verbose for me), but still..
Does it look like functional programming anymore ?
I think there are more succinct snippets in here and some this more verbose exposition is for pedagogical purposes. I am not a fan of ocaml because tacking on the object syntax made SML more verbose (ugly imo). Looks like 0xcaml continued trend.
I had only had a quick look for now. The "Claude skills" look interesting but I don't care about Claude, especially on advanced topics such as the ones in OxCaml. They look interesting for humans to read but it's a bit sad that they're written for ingeestion by an AI system more than understanding by humans. I seems like only a tiny bit of additional prose, explanations and links between sections would make it a great resource for learning and practicing.
I'm not keen on doing tutorials intended for humans from AI generated code; it's got a different emphasis. The handwritten OxCaml tutorial is an example of something for human consumption, and then Jon Ludlam compiled the oxcaml compiler to Javascript so you can interactively learn: https://jon.ludl.am/experiments/oxcaml-tutorial/
Funny, I actually found the LLM documentation of modes more readable than the one for humans (though the LLM docs seem to be missing some of the modes like "visibility" and "future").
It probably has to do with being familiar with the concepts involved (which makes the docs for humans too verbose for me), but still..