LiveScript vs OCaml
When comparing LiveScript vs OCaml, the Slant community recommends OCaml for most people. In the question“What are the best (productivity-enhancing, well-designed, and concise, rather than just popular or time-tested) programming languages?” OCaml is ranked 14th while LiveScript is ranked 67th. The most important reason people chose OCaml is:
Functional programming is based on the lambda calculus. OCaml is in its functional parts almost pure lambda calculus, in a very practical manner: useful for many daily programming tasks. The acitve development makes improvements to the type system like generalized algebraic data types (GADT) or polymorphic variants, so when learning this language you get at once a down to earth usable compiler and advanced abstraction features.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Designed for High-level functional code
LiveScript has terse syntax for common functional operations like map, and ships with a library, prelude.ls, with many of the functions most commonly used by functional programmers.
Pro Good amount of programmer flexibility
There's a huge range of features that can make common tasks faster.
Pro ECMA 6 Features
It is the declared goal of LiveScript’s creators to track ECMAScript 6. Hence, the language gives you ECMAScript 6 plus type annotations (which are optional).
LiveScript's module syntax is currently a bit behind the ECMAScript 6 specification (something that will be fixed eventually). It supports two module standards: CJS (Node.js) and AMD (RequireJS).
Pro Fixes coffeescript scoping issues
=
is used to declare variables in the current scope, in order to redeclare variables of outer scope :=
is used. This way bugs are reduced.
Pro Supported by WebStorm and Visual Studio
Pro Actively-developed functional programming language at the forefront of research
Functional programming is based on the lambda calculus. OCaml is in its functional parts almost pure lambda calculus, in a very practical manner: useful for many daily programming tasks. The acitve development makes improvements to the type system like generalized algebraic data types (GADT) or polymorphic variants, so when learning this language you get at once a down to earth usable compiler and advanced abstraction features.
Pro Encourages functional style
It steers you towards a functional style, but doesn't bother you with purity and "monads everywhere" like other languages, such as Haskell.
Pro No windows!
Strong focus on *nix systems, lacking native support for MS Windows
Lacks native support for Windows systems.
Pro Sophisticated and easy-to-use package manager
OPAM is a package manager for OCaml, which is really easy to use, just like npm. It creates a .opam folder in home directory.
The documentation is great as well, and you can switch between multiple versions of OCaml for each project. You can also package your project and publish it on OPAM repositories, even if the dependencies do not exists on OPAM.
Pro One of the best for writing compilers
OCaml is compiled to native binary, so it's amazingly fast. Being a member of ML-family languages, it has expressive syntax for trees, and has great LLVM support.
Pro Stable syntax
The syntax is consistent, some syntaxic sugar but at a reasonable level, so reading code of others isn't too much confusing.
Pro Strong editor integration
The merlin
editor tool provides all you need to develop OCaml in your favourite editor.
Cons
Con Strong functional lean
LiveScript is designed to be a high level functional language. For people who prefer a more imperative approach it can be hard to get used to.
Con Compiles to unreadable javascript
JSON.stringify(
each(upCaseName)(
sortBy(function(it){
return it.id;
})(
(function(){
var i$, ref$, len$, ref1$, j$, len1$, ref2$, results$ = [];
for (i$ = 0, len$ = (ref$ = table1).length; i$ < len$; ++i$) {
ref1$ = ref$[i$], id1 = ref1$.id, name = ref1$.name;
for (j$ = 0, len1$ = (ref1$ = table2).length; j$ < len1$; ++j$) {
ref2$ = ref1$[j$], id2 = ref2$.id, age = ref2$.age;
if (id1 === id2) {
results$.push({
id: id1,
name: name,
age: age
});
}
}
}
return results$;
}()))));
Con Strong focus on *nix systems, lacking native support for MS Windows
Lacks native support for Windows systems.