blueberry87

i mean, then we get into defining multi-paradigm :P does it have objects that could, theoretically, be used in a java-like object oriented system? yes! does anybody do that? not really! it's far more functional than any other paradigm, and that's what counts.

this is wrong! ocaml is a functional programming language with side effects.

annoyingly go can't have proper sum types, as the requirement for a default value for everything doesn't make any sense for sum types

that's not how compile time works buddy

You lose a very large amount of expressive power if you don't. Any formalisation of the reals requires at least 3 levels, if I remember correctly.

What are your other options? A type-based proof system implies dependent types, implies universe levels if you want it to be consistent.

Trying to compare a switch statement to proper pattern matching is like comparing a rock to a rocket.

What's your workflow for adding a new feature to something? In OCaml, with it's "high-tech language features like algebraic data types and ultra-strict typing", my entire workflow is: - Modify the types to add the new thing. - Fill in all the pattern matching cases that the compiler tells me I need to fill in. - Maybe write a little bit extra logic. And then i'm done, with a solution I know is type safe, will never crash unless i've explicitly let it, etc. How does this help with moving data? Well, wouldn't it be handy if the compiler could stop your program from crashing when something goes wrong, or you could have the compiler track where you've safely and unsafely done operations, or a million other things. Maybe this is too strong a statement, but if you can't see the advantage of that, I don't want to work with code you've written, because you're not doing everything you can to make it as safe as possible.