ocaml is the closest you'll get to having "immutable namespaces"

alexmiller [23:34]
Nice :)

bronsa [23:34]
and redefinition in ocaml is just not a thing
and mutual recursion needs to be compiled in a single compilation block
etc

alexmiller [23:34]
Well if it’s indistinguishable from magic then it must be sufficiently advanced

bronsa [23:34]
hehe
(altho the lack of redefinition in ocaml is considered an intentional feature) (edited)

tbaldridge [23:35]
@bronsa it blew my mind when I found out that F# kept all those "features"
one of the reasons I learned Clojure instead.

noisesmith [23:36]
brb implementing OClojml

bronsa [23:36]
you're kinda forced to do that in a staticly typed lang
otherwise redefinition would invalidate all your types
what a mess that would be
I've never looked at F#

tbaldridge [23:39]
It's pretty much what you'd expect if you built Clojure on .NET and used OCaml as a base instead of lisp. (edited)

bronsa [23:41]
that doesn't actually sound too terrible :)

dpsutton [23:41]
Microsoft have really good tooling and language designers as well

tbaldridge [23:41]
If Clojure didn't exist I'd probably be doing F# instead, I rather like it.

fellshard [23:45]
F#'s tooling was pretty rough last I tried.  It also ends up being pretty verbose at times.

bronsa [23:46]
TBF so is ocaml's tooling IMO

fellshard [23:46]
Want to like it, but it def. suffers from MS' documentation problems

seancorfield [23:46]
I really like F# (what little I've used it). The providers stuff is awesome.

bronsa [23:46]
using ocaml's tooling feels like using common lisp before quicklisp was a thing