I can confirm that it’s great.

There’s no way you’re actually this dumb. Come on. Quit trolling.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have to Google who that is.

For the love of Christ, take it down. Why would you do that to yourself?

It’s definitely that one

Pfft, clearly I was not reading carefully.

+1 for “to’ve”. It’s a good word.

Mm, luckily “vanilla beans” aren’t actually beans. I think the people can handle the idea of a two-bean soup much better, don’t you?

We have?

They should be banned on public roads in general. We need regulations on a maximum blind spot size.

Tik-what?

Fascinating. Who’s the artist?

ꝡa lemiu jí ꝡá jıa bıao ké sıaokaıdo

pu chum shụqmueguaı jí lá sạzunofieq já Tóaqzu da.

naı tuao eıla jí haha

Hah, I was afraid you would say that when I wrote my comment. I don’t mean expressive in the sense of “can encode X”; I mean expressive in the sense of “can nicely encode X”. The bullshit you have to put yourself through in Haskell to get the core niceties of modules is unpalatable (to me, anyway).

Baq deq sạcheom bï, he tı hóq tú da. He tı hóq tú jıeq po báq leq da. He beaı hóq tú pueshıo bộkaqgaı sîa rú he nıe hóq tú guoq po báq kune da.

Modules are substantially more expressive than typeclasses, but yes, type classes get you a decent part of the way there.

Modules are called such because they enable modularity. https://www.pathsensitive.com/2023/03/modules-matter-most-for-masses.html?m=1 that link will explain it more thoroughly than I want to or probably could.

I think it’s just the olives. Suggesting olives on enchiladas 'round here would be liable to get you shot.

If only it had the one thing of OCaml does that’s actually important: ML modules.

Okay, I’m being kinda glib. Ocaml has plenty of other stuff going for it, and F# is a great, productive language, but its biggest weakness is something it doesn’t have.