One of the things we noticed very quickly when we started hiring people to program in OCaml was that the average quality of applicants we saw was much higher than what we saw when trying to hire, say, Java programmers. It’s not that there aren’t really talented Java programmers out there; there are. It’s just that for us, finding them was much harder. The density of bright people in the OCaml community is impressive, and it shows up in hiring and when reading the OCaml mailing list and when reading the software written by people in the community. That pool of talent is probably the single best thing about OCaml from our point of view.
...
It has been my experience and the experience of most of the OCaml programmers I’ve known that the object system in OCaml is basically a mistake. The presence of objects in OCaml is perhaps best thought of as an attractive nuisance. Objects in ML should be at best a last resort. Things that other languages do with objects are in ML better achieved using features like parametric polymorphism, union types and functors. Unfortunately, programmers coming in from other languages where objects are the norm tend to use OCaml’s objects as a matter of course, to their detriment. In the hundreds of thousands of lines of OCaml at Jane Street, there are only a handful of uses of objects, and most of those could be eliminated without much pain.

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.