I think libraries like Lwt will be the ones to offer the level of abstraction which you're describing. I too would like to see the simplicity of goroutines make it into OCaml 5 ASAP.
On parentheses, this is one of the main reasons why I integrated ocamlformat with my editor: I write explicit parentheses around everything and I let the formatter remove the superfluous ones. No surprises or guesswork that way.
I don't think he's a co-founder but he is the one who brought OCaml into that company. Started out as a means to do some quick demos and ended up being their language of choice.
That's nice to know. On the flip side, that's not nice for interaction between older code that wants to mutate and newer code that wants to "copy". If the "copy" code is actually copying all the time behind the scenes (something it has to do if you are compiling with mutable strings for backward compatibility with the rest of your codebase), that's a huge performance hit.
The problem with gloves only would be the lack of tactile feedback to tell your fingers that the key press has registered.
I used a Datahand for several years and while it was very easy on fingers (the activation pressure was much less than typical keyboards, even Topre's), the tactile feedback from the switches was I think essential for typing efficiently.
Luckily, they don't bring with them a lot of cognitive overhead for the developer, so their presence masks the expressiveness of OCaml in LOC stats IMHO. I use interface files to make public signatures explicit, abstract away some types and write thorough doc-comments. I'd be tempted to exclude them from such a comparison to better relate code size with programmer efficiency, especially when comparing to a language like Python.
On the other hand, in languages like C we couldn't exclude header files because they include macros. (Although I suppose a fancier comparison could count macros and exclude function signatures.)
