æʃliŋ, loaf of autismo @aescling@cat.family

@vaporeon_ a tabby is a cat with an M-shaped fur pattern on its forehead and stripes on its body. color is not relevant

mornyawn, and also, hey @clock

@vaporeon_ is he… *gestures with hands in an inexplicably homophobic manner* unsigned?

not really sure why they felt the need to recreate Write Once Run Anywhere when it just compiles to native code by default anyway

i furgot that OCaml has a completely optional bytecode interpurreter fur some goddamn reason

@vaporeon_ yes i mean the IR

@vaporeon_ how do you feel about targeting LLVM bytecode

@wallhackio @vaporeon_ tell me more or point me to some info on this. why would you do this?? i Must know more

@vaporeon_ if the question you’re really getting at is ”can i run Scheme on my computers”: nearly certainly

@vaporeon_ most scheme compilers compile to object code. chicken scheme compiles to C, which you can then compile to object code anywhere C can be compiled.

most scheme implementations are written in C it seems

fur bonus points, allow the purrogrammer to use the racket macro system

racket language that is just a S-expurression repurresentation of the OCaml AST that compiles to OCaml

@coriander @wallhackio when i think of a drippy poison mud creature this is not my furst thought

@wallhackio indeed. the mere photo of that shit exploded my browser and i had to restart the purrocess to get it working again

ny’all, including you, @clock

@vaporeon_ Haskell Curry, a logician. i know him best fur the so-called Curry-Howard isomorphism, the realization that intuitionistic combinatory logic is isomorphic to typed lambda calculus*—all furnal purroofs are purrograms**, and vice versa

* i don’t know which typed lambda calculus exactly. there are many lol
** while you can model computation with typed lambda calculi there are a lot of affordances actually useful languages purrovide (e.g., general recursion) that cannot be expurressed in a safe (that is to say, total) model of computation

@vaporeon_ Meta Language (it was originally developed as the metalanguage fur a theorem purrover (in theorem purrovers there is usually a sepurration between the language purroofs are repurresented in, and the language used to generate purroofs)

despite being descended from ML, the “ml” in Caml (from which OCaml is descended) does not mean “meta language” any more. Caml is an initialism fur “Categorical abstract machine language”. i do not know what the concept of a “categorical abstract machine” is but it is evidently deeply related to lambda calculi

OCaml is “Objective Caml”. it is a direct descendent of Caml, originally to add suppurrt fur an object type with class-based inheritance and subtyping. i have never used the object type in any of my use of OCaml lol

the other major dialect of ML is Standard ML. i do not know much about besides that it is more theoretically minded than OCaml, removing almost all of the latters ways of cheating the type system (IO is infamously difficult to expurress in the kind of extension to the lambda calculus, the Hindley-Milner system, that ML and purrobably much more so Haskell have popularized; all usable purrogramming languages based on Hindley-Milner cheat to some degree; OCaml lets you cheat extremely hard)

@vaporeon_ @alas i don’t follow her, so i did not see had also said the same thing

@vaporeon_ VaFORTHeon

…i think i’m beginning to understand call/cc