This might be entirely superficial of me, but I always preferred Haskell over OCaml simply because OCaml required me to type ";;" after every line.
That's easily fixed: only the toplevel requires ;; (to commence evaluation of the phrases you've typed in). Just don't use it in normal code and everything will parse fine.
Would you care to share an example? I've never encountered a justifiable need to write ;; outside the REPL. The only uses of ;; I've encountered "in the wild" were hardly reasonable: essentially top-level code that was not wrapped in a "let () = ..." statement.
I don't recall seeing that recommendation before this thread. That may just be my blindness in skimming things too quickly. In any case, I think it indicates a wart in the language when you have to wrap everything in otherwise useless let blocks just to get it to parse.
Comments
That's easily fixed: only the toplevel requires ;; (to commence evaluation of the phrases you've typed in). Just don't use it in normal code and everything will parse fine.
That's an exaggeration. There are circumstances in files where it's necessary. I didn't realize this, which hung me up for a long time.
Would you care to share an example? I've never encountered a justifiable need to write ;; outside the REPL. The only uses of ;; I've encountered "in the wild" were hardly reasonable: essentially top-level code that was not wrapped in a "let () = ..." statement.
I don't recall seeing that recommendation before this thread. That may just be my blindness in skimming things too quickly. In any case, I think it indicates a wart in the language when you have to wrap everything in otherwise useless let blocks just to get it to parse.
Don't put non-let expressions at the top level?