Does Pure OCaml equate Pure Functional with literature and custom?

Question

I understand that “Pure OCaml” means everything that is standard in OCaml, including its “pure functional functions”, while “pure functional” means ordinary attributes: no side effects, exception handling, etc. That’s the point, the implementation of “pure OCaml” is said to be the opposite of, say, OCaml with an implementation of C or C ++.

However, I recently discussed this issue with someone who strongly insisted that "pure OCaml" in certain circles means a "purely functional subset" of OCaml.

Are these two values ​​really used in the community? Is there such an ambiguity? Are there any pointers to some highly rated sources that use "pure OCaml" in the second sense?

Answer 1

It is difficult to answer such questions because the whole community has been asked. They are better suited for the OCaml mailing list, although people there may be a little disappointed.

So, I can’t answer for the whole community, but I personally think that you are here. When someone says "pure OCaml", it usually means that the program is implemented only in the OCaml language without any Cstubs.

OCaml. , -, . , String, , -, .

Answer 2

" OCaml" , OCaml.

Obj, " OCaml" (Xavier Leroy caml-list http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.caml.general/47389).

C, OCaml, (Str, Unix,...).

Answer 3

" OCaml" " OCaml". OCaml , OCaml (, Harper ), " OCaml" .